Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the size of the proposed floating dock at Singapore; what size of vessels it will be able to take; when construction will be commenced; and where it will be built?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated ultimate cost on all counts for the construction of the Singapore naval base when fully completed?

20 and 28. Mr. MORRIS: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether the sum of £787,000, stated to be the total proposed expenditure on the Singapore base up to the end of the year 1927–28, includes the cost of a graving dock; and, if not, whether it is proposed to dispense with this type of dock;
(2) the estimated cost of the proposed graving dock at Singapore?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I propose to make a statement to-morrow which will cover all the points raised in these questions, and I will ask the hon. Members to wait for my statement, as I think it will be more convenient than dealing with the matter piecemeal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is always very anxious to help Members with information, but his proposal is not convenient, as this information was required for the Debate to-morrow. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to give me some information in reply to Question No. 14 I should be very much obliged.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All the questions are so much interlocked that I should have to make a very long statement to make it quite clear. If I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman outside any information that he wants, I shall be very glad to supply him with it, but to answer these four questions now, I should really have to make the speech which I shall have to make to-morrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I could have a letter by to-morrow morning it would be useful? In Question No. 14 I am only asking for certain details. If it is contrary to the public interest I do not press it, but, if it is not, I really would like this information now.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will speak to me this afternoon on the subject.

Mr. MORRIS: With regard to Question No. 20, could we get the estimated figures in the Paper which has been issued?

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the protection of the proposed Singapore Base will entail the building of an increased number of submarines?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to give any estimate of the size and the cost of the garrison necessary to protect the proposed Singapore base?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does that mean that the Minister and the Government have not the slightest idea?

Captain KING: I think that if the hon. Member will refer to the reply, he will find that the subject is still under consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any saving on the Dockyard Vote for other dockyards is expected as a result of the establishment of the new dockyard at Singapore; and, if so, at which dockyards will a reduction be possible?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The cost of such work as may in the future be carried out at the Singapore base to the ships of the Fleet will afford corresponding relief to the dockyards now existing. It is not, however, at present possible to say where, and to what extent, this relief will be afforded.

ADMIRALTY STAFF.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of increase of the total Departmental staff as on 1st January, 1925, compared with 1st January, 1914; and what steps, if any, are being taken to reduce the staff?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The staff of the Admiralty (excluding industrial grades) at headquarters and the outports on the 1st January, 1925, was approximately 50 per cent. greater than on the 1st January, 1914. The staff is constantly under review, as is evidenced by the fact that there has been a reduction of nearly 200 since the 1st January, 1924.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the personnel of the Navy is down by 30 per cent. during the same period, and is it necessary that there should be such an increased staff to deal with a smaller personnel?

Mr. DAVIDSON: That had better be dealt with to-morrow.

"HAWKINS" AND "EFFINGHAM."

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how long the "Hawkins" took to build; how long the sister ship "Effingham" is expected to take to build; and what were their respective costs?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer is—"Hawkins," time, three years and two months; total cost, including guns,
£1,636,745; "Effingham," estimated time, eight years and three months; estimated total cost, including guns, £2,175,000.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the very great difference in cost is due to the length of time the ship is taking to build?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should not like to say so offhand.

Mr. ERSKINE: Would it not be best if these ships were built in Germany?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No, Sir.

EDWARD HUGHES, A.B. (DISCHARGE).

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Edward Hughes, late able seaman, official number J. 14,466, who purchased his discharge from the Royal Navy on the 9th February last for pressing domestic reasons, was only 10 weeks short of completing 12 years' service, at the expiration of which he would have been entitled to a free discharge; and whether, in view of the fact that ho was compelled to pay the sum of £24, a sum which he could ill afford, in lieu of 10 weeks' service, some refund can be made to him?

Mr. DAVIDSON: This man would have completed his engagement on the 10th April, but, as stated, preferred for private reasons to purchase his immediate discharge on the terms laid down for a rating with his length of service. The Regulations do not admit of the refund of any portion of the purchase money, though free discharge is granted in exceptional circumstances, which, however, did not exist in this case.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of each air plane and pilot per annum carried in an aircraft carrier in peace time, spreading the whole annual cost of the carrier over the number of aircraft carried, and allowing for interest on first cost and replacement of aircraft for their allotted life and interest on first cost and replacement of aircraft carriers after 20 years, with all the incidental charges of pay allowances, victualling stores, fuel, repairs, and liability in regard to retired pay and pensions?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The present figure is approximately £20,900.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to consider the suggestion that all ratings discharged from the Royal Navy medically unfit for further service, for reasons beyond their own control, be given a pension at the basic rate in respect of the length of their service, particularly in view of the fact that their careers have been ruined and that their wage-earning capacity has been depreciated?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the present scales and conditions of pension for disability were determined after very careful consideration, I regret that I am unable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

ESTABLISHED WORKMEN (PENSIONS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the deductions which are made from the wages of established men in the Royal dockyards, whether his attention has been called to the answer to Petitions from Dockyard Employes, 1914, wherein it is stated, in reply to a request that pensions be calculated on the hired rate, that the rates of wages of established men take into account that the service is a pensionable one, and that it is a recognised principle that, in consideration of their prospective pensionable rights, pensionable civil servants should receive a lower rate of pay than the hired or un-pensionable servant; whether he will now say by virtue of what provision in the Superannuation Acts the Admiralty makes a deduction from the wages of established men; and, if there is no such provision in the Superannuation Acts, whether he will take steps to give these men the full benefits of the Acts, and further undertake to base their pensions upon their full rate of pay and emoluments

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the hon. Member has been previously informed by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he is under a misapprehension in thinking that any actual deductions are made from the wages of established workmen in His Majesty's
Dockyards. There is a well recognised distinction made between the rate of pay of a hired man and that of an established man of similar grade for the reason given in the replies to the petitions referred to. The Superannuation Acts do not deal with the emoluments to be received by employes of the Crown while in service, but with the awards to be made after service is completed. The full benefits of the Acts are accorded to the established workmen whose pensions, under those Statutes, are based upon the pay and emoluments actually granted in respect of their employment in established capacities.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE STOKERS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give instructions to his officials at the various ports that no stoker in the Royal Naval Reserve who has completed his second period of five years' service since 1st November, 1914, shall be refused enrolment for a third period simply because he happens to have been, or to be, unemployed?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Under the Royal Naval Reserve Regulations, stokers, during their first three periods of five years' service, must be employed either as firemen, or in a higher engine-room or stokehold capacity, at sea, or as firemen, furnacemen or stokers on shore. Men who are unemployed when they apply for re-enrolment are given three months' grace in which to obtain employment of the above description. Royal Naval Reservists, however, with three years' sea service during the War are not debarred by unemployment from re-enrolment in the Reserve, provided that they are otherwise eligible. It is not considered advisable to extend this concession.

Mr. THOMSON: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered that while three months was a suitable period in normal conditions of unemployment, it is not a suitable period in the abnormal unemployment that exists to-day, and can he extend the period to meet the abnormal amount of unemployment?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will consider that, but I do not think it will be possible to make further concessions.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (SHETLAND ISLES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty at what date the Regulation was introduced preventing the enrolment in the Royal Naval Reserve of men residing at a distance of more than 12 miles from the office of the local registrar at Lerwick; how many men it is estimated will be thereby prevented from enrolling in the Shetland Isles; and what would be the travelling and subsistence expenses of a man coming from 24 miles distance compared with that of a man coming from 12 miles?.

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to the first part of the question is 3rd December, 1923. As regards the second part, the fixing of a 12-mile radius actually extended the area of recruitment. The travelling and subsistence expenses referred to in the last part of the question are: (1) for men living on the Island of Mainland, 12 miles from Lerwick, single journey, 2s. 6d.; (2) for men living on the Island of Mainland or other islands, 24 miles distant from Lerwick, 6s. to 28s. single journey.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be desirable to get these fine seamen into the Royal Naval Reserve by saving somewhat on the staff?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will consider that

OIL FUEL.

Captain A. EVANS: 26.
(for Mr. CLARRY) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total storage capacity of oil fuel in the United Kingdom at the present time?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I regret that I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question as it is not in the public interest to publish any figures as regards naval oil fuel storage.

Captain A. EVANS (for Mr. CLARRY): 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the source upon which, in the case of national emergency, we would rely for the supply of oil fuel for the Navy?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that every available source of supply would be drawn upon.

CRUISER PROGRAMMES (FOREIGN POWERS).

Major CRAWFURD: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of cruisers for the building of which the Congress of the United States of America has voted the money?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Two, Sir, which form part of a programme of eight cruisers to be laid down prior to the 1st July, 1927.

Mr. MORRIS: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers are at present being built, or are authorised to be built, by the French Government; and how many are projected?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to page 23 of Command Paper No. 2349—Fleets (The British Empire and Foreign Countries), from which he will see that France has five cruisers building and four projected, but not yet authorised, which it is intended to lay down between 1925 and 1929.

SUDAN (ARRESTS AND REPATRIATION).

Mr. LANSBURY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the number of persons who, during the past six months, have been arrested and charged with political offences by the British authorities in the Sudan; what number of persons have been expelled from the Sudan and the nature of their offences; whether any of these persons were State officials; were they allowed any opportunity to appear before a court of discipline or law; and will he publish the names of all officials expelled or in prison, and the nature of the offences charged against them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I apologise if I am rather indistinct; I will do my best to make myself heard. Ninety-four persons were arrested and charged with offences under the laws of the Sudan since, and in connection with, the disturbances in August last. During the same period 125 persons, almost all employés of the Sudan Government, were repatriated to Egypt because their presence in the Sudan was a danger to public security. The officials in ques-
tion were discharged in accordance with their terms of service, and they received the pensions or gratuities to which they would have been entitled had their retirement been due to ill-health and which they would have lost on conviction by a Court of law or discipline. I have not the information asked for in the last part of the question.

GENEVA PROTOCOL.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the names of the Powers that have expressed their adherence to the Geneva Protocol?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest information in my possession, the following countries have signed the Protocol:


Albania.
Greece.


Belgium.
Latvia.


Brazil.
Paraguay.


Bulgaria.
Poland.


Czechslovakia.
Portugal.


Chile.
Serb-Croat-


Esthonia.
Slovene State.


Finland.
Spain.


France.
Uruguay.


I do not think that any have yet actually ratified.

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. BECKETT): 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the unanimous decision of the French Government to support the Protocol and to consider reasonable amendments thereto; if this decision will cause the British Government to reconsider their attitude; and if he is prepared to initiate conversations with the French Government with a view to finding a basis for joint support of the Protocol at Geneva?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government were aware of the views of the French Government before they defined their own attitude. As regards the last part of the question, the objections of His Majesty's Government to the Protocol are so fundamental that the Protocol does not seem to us to afford the best basis for further negotiations. The course which appears to His Majesty's Government to bo more likely to promote the object of security at
which the Protocol aims was indicated in the declaration which I read at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House with regard to his recent visit to Geneva?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that there is to be a discussion on Tuesday next. A printed report on the Council meeting will be presented to the House as usual.

MINORITY TREATIES.

Mr. RILEY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government still stands by its obligations as one of the signatories to the Minority Treaties; and, if so, what stops are now being taken to have the treaties carried out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Minority Treaties are placed under the supervision of the League of Nations, and appeals from the Minorities are not infrequently submitted to the Council. Even in my short experience of Council proceedings I have had ample evidence of the care and attention which the Members of the Council devote to their consideration. Each ease is necessarily decided on its merits, and no general statement is, I think, possible.

GRAECO-BULGARTAN PROTOCOL.

Mr. RILEY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Government will use its influence to secure such action by the League of Nations as may bring about the ratification of the Greco-Bulgarian protocol regarding (he rights of minorities in Greece and Bulgaria, and which protocol was signed by the delegates representing Greece and Bulgaria at Geneva last September.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Greek Assembly refused to ratify the Protocol as signed by the delegate of (he Greek Government. In these circumstances it was decided at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations which took place last week, to address to the Greek Government a number of questions
requesting certain explanations, firstly as to what measures have already been taken for the practical application of the provisions of the Minorities Treaties, and, secondly, what measures were proposed to meet the future needs of the Slav-speaking minorities.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great urgency of this matter, in view of the fact that, as I understand, there are at present 1,500,000 Greek refugees unsettled, and 400,000 Bulgarians and that, unless attention is given to this matter, serious trouble may arise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I have been trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman is that very serious attention was given to this question last week in Geneva, when it was my rather difficult duty to be rapporteur on this subject to the Council.

Mr. N. BUXTON: Will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to ask His Majesty's Consuls for special reports as to the recent exodus of refugees from Macedonia?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not think I am prepared to demand any particular reports from His Majesty's Consuls at this moment. The matter has been considered by the Council of the League, and I abide by the decision of the Council.

GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. PONSONBY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have ever informed the Soviet Government of the points to which they take objection in the treaties concluded by the late Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. No purpose would be served by discussing in detail treaties that have been rejected as a whole.

Mr. PONSONBY: Were not the proposals of the Soviet Government more or less contained in those treaties, and is it not, therefore, for His Majesty's Government to explain what their objections are?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question which I have already answered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that,
until some further step is taken by His Majesty's Government, the treaty having been rejected, there is no step that the other side can very well take, so that there must be some move from us?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In my opinion, the time has not come when His Majesty's Government can advantageously take any new step. In order that they should be in a position to take, with the possibility of usefulness and fruitfulness, any new step, it would be necessary that our general relations should be more completely amicable and cordial in all parts of the world than they are at present.

BRITISH AND JAPANESE NAVIES (PERSONNEL).

Commander BELLAIRS: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the present numbers of the personnel of the British and Japanese navies; and what is the expansion provided for in the Japanese navy in the coming years?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of officers and men actually borne on Vote A on the 15th February, 1925, was 99,894 for Fleet Services, and 287 R.M. Police, making a total of 100,181. The number of officers and men on the active list of the Japanese Navy on 1st July, 1924, was 72,831. With regard to the second part of the question I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SOUTHWARK.

Colonel DAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the existing distress among many unemployed workers in the borough of Southwark who are not in receipt of benefit; and will he consider the immediate necessity of amending the Unemployment Insurance Regulations in order that genuine unemployed workers may not be deprived of benefit and be made to suffer undue hardship?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I am aware of the general position as regards unemployment at Southwark, but I do not think that the present regulations are such as to deprive of benefit genuinely unemployed workers in the insured trades who satisfy the conditions laid down by the
Statute. I shall, however, be happy to inquire into any cases of which the hon. and gallant Member gives me particulars.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange to publish in the Labour Gazette monthly a statement as to the numbers on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure that it would be possible to compile accurate statistics of this description without excessive labour, but I am having inquiry made.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed who received unemployment benefit in the second week in March, 1924, and in the corresponding week in March of this year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 2nd March. 1925, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of persons registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain who had claims to benefit current at that date was 1,169,069, as compared with 1,057,007 at 3rd March, 1924.

Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of that very considerable increase in the unemployed, is the Department prepared to put in hand additional schemes for the relief of the unemployed above what was done last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am always ready, as I have told the hon. Member, to consider schemes, but the

—
Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
—
—
—
—
—


Insurable employed not likely to be available
15
—
8
—
23


Not reasonable period of insurable employed during the preceding two years.
161
—
6
—
167


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, or not willing to accept suitable employment.
16
3
40
1
60


Failure to satisfy new conditions of waiver
3
—
—
—
3


Others (Failure to attend hearing, etc.)
9
—
1
—
10



204
3
55
1
263


Note. —Some of those entered under the last heading ("Failure to attend hearing, etc.'') may have had their claims allowed at a subsequent hearing, and the total number of final rejections is therefore somewhat less than that given in the Table; precise figures on this point are not available.

difficulty is to find schemes which are really suitable. On the other hand, I ought to warn him that he must not draw too immediate a comparison from these two sets of figures, as it is probable that, owing to the effect of last year's Act, another roughly between 70,000 and 90,000 ought to be deducted from this year's figures to make them fairly comparable with last year.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to find a solution to the unemployed question during his term of office?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I indicated it on Monday at the end of my statement.

Colonel DAY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some information why he did not make this deduction during the last Election.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. SHORT: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons in the various categories who have had their benefit disallowed since the 1st December, 1924, by the Darlaston Employment Exchange, and the grounds upon which benefit has been so disallowed.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the Hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Between 9th December, 1924, and 9th March, 1925, the number of applications for extended benefit rejected at the Darlaston Employment Exchange was as under:

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention had been drawn to a resolution passed by the Nottingham and district employment committee condemning Circular 8,213 as harsh and unnecessary; whether he can state how many unemployed are affected by this circular; how many of these are ex-Service men; and to how many of these have offers of work been made in the last 12 months.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have received the resolution referred to. As the Noble Lord is aware, the requirement to which the resolution refers was announced in this House on 11th February and was explained and discussed in the Debate on 9th March. The number of claims rejected under this requirement up to 2nd March in the area of the Nottingham Employment Exchange was 214. No information is available as to the number of ex-Service men included in this total.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for extended unemployment insurance benefit during the period 3rd July, 1922. to 8th March, 1925. in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who have had their claims rejected by local employment committees on the five statutory grounds for rejection?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the period 3rd July, 1922, to 9th February, 1925, the number of applications for extended benefit rejected in Great Britain was 931,653. It should be noted that this total does not represent that number of different individuals. I cannot give statistics in respect of Northern Ireland. An analysis of the masons for such rejections is available for part of this period only, and as it includes a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

ANALYSIS OF REASONS FOR REJECTION OF CLAIMS TO EXTENDED BENEFIT.

A.—18th October, 1923, to 31th July, 1924.



Not normally in insurable employment
40,201


Not genuinely seeking whole-time employment
106,555

Not 20 contributions and not a reasonable period of insurable employment
18,411


Single persons residing with relatives to whom they could look for support
20,283


Married women living with husbands to whom they could look for support
11,872


Short-time workers earning sufficient for maintenance
539


Aliens
159


Others
18,419



216,439


B.—1st August, 1924, to 9th February, 1925.



Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment
28,599


Insurable employment not likely to be available
8,338


Not reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years
70,070


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, or not willing to accept suitable employment
58,564


Others (failure to attend hearing, etc.)
57,552



223,123

It should further be noted that

(a) Some of those entered under the last heading ("Failure to attend hearing, etc.") may have had their claims allowed at a subsequent hearing, and the total number of final rejections is therefore somewhat less than that given in the table: precise figures on this point are not available.
(b) It would not be safe to draw any conclusions from a comparison of figures in categories of apparently similar description in Tables A and B. respectively.

DOCK LABOURERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the grievance existing among dock labourers at the Regulations which
lay down that a man not signing as unemployed on the day after the holidays loses benefit for all the days of the holidays, even although seeking work during the holidays and unable to obtain it, and that if he works half a day after the holidays he loses all the days' benefit of the holidays, and there is little inducement, therefore, for him to seek work on that day; and whether he has now considered this matter with a view to improvement?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not been able to trace any rule which would have the effect suggested in the question.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as holidays where men are casually employed and that on Good Friday the Employment Exchanges are close. The men present themselves for employment, but if they do not sign twice on the day they present themselves there is no record kept, and that means that, Saturday being the only recognised holiday, it does not count, and Monday is a bank holiday. Under the circumstances will he make some alteration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think perhaps what the hon Member is referring to—I could not hear everything quite clearly—is the Regulation that applies to men on part time and dock labourers, which is that, where you have a public holiday, they will get unemployment benefit for the period of the holiday provided they are unemployed for 12 days either immediately preceding or after, or partly preceding and partly after, which meets the general case as regards any unfairness as regards holidays as regards dockers and short timers. If there is any special question in addition to that, if the hon. Member, or the hon. Member who put the question, will communicate with me, I will look into that as well.

EXTENDED BENEFIT.

Mr. FORREST: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the time that has elapsed since the passing of the Bill of 1924 extending uncovenanted benefit, he can state what has been the result of the working of this system hitherto, and more especially the extent to which men thus receiving uncovenanted benefit are meeting by stamps the advances made to
them; and whether the experience of the working of this Act in any way affects the actuarial estimates which were then formed of the effect of this proposal on the stability of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is, I am afraid, no means of estimating at all accurately the extent to which the individuals who have drawn uncovenanted benefit, or, as it is now described, extended benefit, pay in an equivalent amount by way of contributions. The experience of the seven months since the coming into force of the 1924 Act on 1st August last has not revealed any departure from the actuarial estimates framed in connection with that Act, but I should point out that the volume of unemployment since that date has hitherto been substantially greater than the average assumed for the purpose of those estimates.

NON-INSURABLE TRADES.

Mr. PALING: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the estimated number of unemployed persons in the non-insurable trades and industries in Great Britain; and will he state the estimated number of unemployed persons who do not trouble to register because they have exhausted their benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 2nd March last the number of persons entered on the registers of the Employment Exchanges as non-claimants to benefit was 66,549. I am afraid I cannot give any estimate of the number of unemployed persons not registered at the Exchanges.

BLEACHERS, CALICO PRINTERS AND DYERS.

Mr. FINBURGH: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women over the age of 18 who are employed in all capacities, respectively, by the Bleachers' Association, Limited, Calico Printers' Association, Limited, and Bradford Dyers' Association, Limited, are given three days' work per week and who register at the Labour Exchanges for the remaining three days to entitle them to receive unemployment pay in part; and what is the average weekly total cost, in the aggregate, to the Government?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. FINBURGH: When will it be available? It is a very important matter.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Unless it is absolutely necessary I am afraid it will not be available. It would be exceedingly difficult to get the information, as it would mean analysing the whole of thousands of insurance cards in order to tabulate them according to the particular employment. I am afraid that unless an overwhelming case is made out to me I should hardly like to have the necessary time taken up in getting the information.

APPRENTICESHIPS.

Mr. GROVES: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the present degree of unemployment is fast killing the apprenticeship system of this country; whether he is prepared to take any steps to revive it; and, in view of the fact that many lads between 14 and 18, who have never been taught any specific trade, are now drawing unemployment benefit, he will consider the practicability of calling a conference of the trade union representatives and employers generally to make openings for these young men?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already arranged for an inquiry to be made in the near future with regard to the present state of apprenticeship in the various trades, and as soon as this inquiry is completed I will consider, in the light of the information thus obtained, what action can usefully be taken.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour what new schemes, if any, have been initiated by the Government to provide work for the unemployed since they entered office, independent of or in conjunction with the local authorities; which of these new schemes are in operation; and how many men are employed under them?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having the information collected, and will send it to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. HARRIS: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour how much public money has been spent by the Government in providing money for work for the unemployed either through grants from the Road Board, or
through local authorities, or in any other form for the three months December, January, and February, 1924–25; how many men have been employed in work as a result of this expenditure; and how do these figures compare with the corresponding figures for December, January, and February, 1923–24?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Unemployment Grants Committee.
Payments.


Dec, 1923; Jan. and Feb., 1924.
Dec, 1924; Jan. and Feb., 1925.



£
£


(a) Schemes assisted by grants based on wages paid.
166,780
179,650


(b) Schemesassisted by grants towards Interest, or Interest and Sinking Fund Charges.
181,552
417,264

Ministry of Transport.

The latest information at present available as to Government contributions paid through the Road Fund relates to the three months ended 31st December, 1924. Payments made during this period were, approximately, £1,026,000, as against £820,000 in the corresponding period of the previous year. The disbursements, however, do not bear any exact relation to the volume of employment in any given period.

Miscellaneous Schemes.

A number of Departments are concerned and particulars of expenditure in the months mentioned in the question are not at present available, but I will endeavour to obtain them if the hon. Member so desires.

Export Credits Scheme.

Guarantees in use or earmarked were as follows:

£


31st December, 1923
8,528,078


4th February, 1924
8,183,550


3rd March, 1924
8,142,136

£


29th December, 1924
4,967,720


2nd February, 1925
4,775,601


28th February, 1925
4,725,814

Guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 to 1924.

Total amount of guarantees as at

£


31st December, 1923
38,205,645


31st January, 1924
38,205,645


29th February, 1924
38,205,645


31st December, 1924
52,600,311


31st January, 1925
54,117,311


28th February, 1925
54,215,311

According to returns received, the total number of men directly employed on relief work were as follows, at the end of

£


December, 1923
76,596


January, 1924
89,047


February, 1924
95,619


December, 1924
103,261


January, 1925
109,399


February, 1925
118,234*


*Subject to revision.

STAMPS (RELIEF WORK).

Miss WILKINSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that rota committees have refused to count stamps obtained on road work or other relief work as part of the eight, stamps required under the new Regulations; and whether he proposes to issue any instructions on the subject?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Stamps affixed in respect of road work or other insurable relief work are valid contributions. If the hon. Member knows of any cases in which they have not been duly reckoned, and will let me know, I will have inquiry made.

Miss WILKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the Middlesbrough Employment Exchange of that fact?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should have every natural reason to believe that the Middlesbrough Exchange knew that like any other Exchange. If there is any reason to think to the contrary, perhaps the hon. Member will supply me with the facts.

JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES.

Miss WILKINSON: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the action of rota committees, who have demanded of young persons attending juvenile training centres that they should also seek for work on those days on which they are required to attend the centres as a condition of receiving insurance benefit; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of any cases in which rota committees have required young persons to seek for work on the days on which they are required to attend juvenile unemployment centres as a condition of showing that they are making every reasonable effort to obtain employment. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases of this kind which have come to her notice, I will cause inquiries to be made.

CASES UNDER INQUIRY.

Mr. LANSBURY (for Mr. CECIL WILSON): 56 and 57.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that W. Waddell, 87, Newhall Road, Sheffield, aged 38, had never, up to 31st December, 1921, been out of employment; that since that time he has only had odd jobs of short duration, in spite of his having gone to considerable distances from Sheffield in search of employment; that ho has visited local firms three or four times a week: that he has been refused employment at the Tyler Street and Petre Street munition huts on the ground that he is not an ex-service man; that he has repeatedly enquired for work at the Employment Exchange without success; and! whether, as this man is a steelworks labourer and, in view of the latter part of L.E.C. 82/2, genuinely seeking but unable to obtain whole-time employment, page 13, paragraph 8, and the great depression in the steel trade, he will reconsider this case;
(2) whether he is aware that the number of men employed in the iron and steel trade in the Sheffield and Rotherham districts is not materially different from what it has been during the last three or four years, that preference for employment is given to younger men, and that E. H. Wigfall, 19, Carlton Road, age 56, and R. Day, 169, Main Road, age
46. with five children under 14 years of age, have been refused benefit on the ground that they have not been in insurable employment during the last two years; and whether, seeing that continuous visits to the Labour Exchange and to many firms have not enabled them to secure employment, he will have these cases reconsidered?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having enquiries made into this case and into those referred to in Question No. 57, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

KING'S ROLL.

Mr. GRUNDY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether firms engaged on Government contracts are on the King's Roll: and, if not, will he issue instructions to all departments that no further contract is to be given to any firm unless on the Roll?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply. It has been a rule since June, 1921, that, save in very exceptional circumstances, firms engaged on Government contracts to whom the conditions for membership of the King's Roll are applicable must be on the King's National Roll.

TRAINING.

Mr. S. CROOKE: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-service men trained under the Government training scheme; the number at present under instruction; the number of such trainees now in regular employment and the number totally unemployed; the number absorbed by firms on the King's Roll: and the number in receipt of guardians' relief?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: About 90,000 ex-service men have been trained under the Industrial Training Scheme up to date, and the number at present under instruction is approximately 6,400. No figures are available of the number of ex-trainees now in regular employment or unemployed, but a census taken in March of last year showed that only about 7 per cent. of the men who had been trained were then unemployed. The total
number of disabled ex-service men employed with firms on the King's Roll is approximately 350,000, but I have no figures to indicate how many of these are ex-trainees.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable to keep some record of these trainees who, unfortunately, get out of employment, with a view to utilising them so that he may know that he has on a register a certain number of trained men for specific work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We do recommend men as they come out according to the specific work for which they are fitted. On the other hand, it would be a rather difficult matter to keep a register as suggested. It would require a rather vast staff to keep a register of about 90,000 people supplementary to the general register.

Sir F. HALL: It is not a question of keeping a register of 90,000 but a register of those trainees, on whom a large amount of money has been expended, who are unemployed. Cannot something be done on those lines? They are ex-service men.

Captain A. EVANS: Is it not a fact that these particulars are kept by the unemployment exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is a thing that is worth considering. It means keeping a register of some 90,000 men, because, at any moment any one of them may come out. It is not only the people who come out from time to time. If the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich will communicate with me I shall be glad to look into the matter.

CIVIL LIABILITIES GRANTS.

Mr. BENNETT: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that between 1920 and 1924 the House of Commons has voted £3,319,600 for the purpose of Civil Liabilities Grants; whether during that period only £2,135,517 has been expended; whether for 1924–25 the amount voted was £165,000, and only £134,000 was expended; and whether, considering the urgent need of utilising this money for the benefit of ex-service men, he will instruct the Civil Liabilities Committee to be more generous and more prompt in dealing with applications?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The figures given in the question are correct, except that the sum of £134,000 is an estimate only. The difference between the amounts included in the original Estimates and the amounts in fact spent is due to the fact that it was impossible to forecast the precise rate at which applications from eligible candidates would be received. This was particularly the case when the scheme started and the disparity is accounted for mainly in 1920–21, when the difference was nearly £1,000,000. In later years, the disparity has not been large considering the circumstances. I have no reason to think that there is any avoidable delay in dealing with applications from the limited class of disabled ex-service men eligible for grant, and I can assure my hon. Friend that full and sympathetic consideration is given to each application, both by the local committees and by the administrative officials.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. GRANT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the desire existent in this House that the question of the reform of the Second Chamber should be dealt with, he will state if and when this House may expect to hear a statement from the Government in regard to the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present.

Mr. GRANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the disappointment which exists in consequence of the shelving of this question by successive Governments?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have not been in office as many months as we hope to be years.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of leaving things as they are?

BONA-FIDE TRAVELLERS.

Mr. DIXEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister, whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by a large section of the travelling public owing to the aboli-
tion of the bona-fide traveller clause of the Licensing Acts; whether representations have been made to him on the matter; and what steps does he propose to take?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply to this question. I do not think that the repeal of the statutory provisions relating to the bona-fide traveller has involved any substantial hardship to the travelling public, and there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for reviving them.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (VOTING METHODS).

Major CRAWFURD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if the forthcoming conference on franchise reform will consider the method of voting at Parliamentary elections as well as the persons who are to vote?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question of 26th February last.

Major CRAWFURD: May I ask the hon. Member or, through him, his right hon. Friend, if and when I may expect an answer to this very simple question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps it will be as well if the hon. and gallant Member would put down a question next week to the Home Secretary.

ARMAMENTS (REDUCTION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of making a public statement indicative of the desire of His Majesty's Government to confer with foreign nations with the object of securing a reduction of armaments in navies, armies or air services?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is already well known that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to promote the reduction of armaments by any appropriate means, but I am glad of this opportunity of making it clear once more.

AIR OFFICERS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES.)

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any allowances are granted to officers of the Royal Air Force for proficiency in foreign languages; if so, what is the average amount granted to an officer; and how many officers have qualified for receipt thereof?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): As the answer involves giving a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

The Regulations governing the issue of awards for proficiency in foreign languages to Royal Air Force officers are contained in paragraphs 396 to 416 of the King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions for the Royal Air Force. The amounts of the awards, which depend on the degree of proficiency attained and also, for Arabic and Japanese, on whether the officer is serving at home or abroad, are £12 or £24 for French, £25 or £50 for German, £20 to £120 for Arabic, and up to £250 for Japanese. The number of officers who have qualified for awards are 12 for French, seven for Herman, eight for Arabic, and six for Japanese. Royal Air Force officers in India are eligible for awards under Indian Regulations, and inquiry in regard to these should be made of the India Office.

BRITISH AND FRENCH AIR FORCES.

Mr. S. CROOKE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the number of fighting aeroplanes and airships at present in commission and under construction in this country and in France, and the estimated figures under the same headings for the year 1926?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the present strength of the British and French Air Forces, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 19th February, to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. The Royal Air Force, as my right hon. Friend explained recently to the House, will be increased by seven or eight new squadrons in
1925–26; I have no information as to the probable French increase in the same period. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the number of aeroplanes under construction or on order for the Royal Air Force, and I have no information as to the corresponding figures for the French Air Service. There are no airships at present in commission in England, while the French have one rigid airship and seven non-rigid. It is intended to commence the construction of one airship in England this year, and to continue it in 1926.

PASSENGER AEROPLANES (ALTITUDE).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will seek to incorporate in international rules a minimum altitude at which passenger-carrying machines on the London-Paris service shall cross the English Channel?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not practicable, owing to the variability of atmospheric conditions, to lay clown a minimum altitude below which aircraft must not fly when crossing the English Channel. I may add, however, that higher flying, that is. above rather than below the clouds, will be gradually promoted by the development of aircraft instruments to facilitate navigation in fog.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the variability of atmospherical conditions which makes a minimum altitude necessary?

Sir P. SASSOON: All pilots prefer to fly above the clouds rather than below. Owing to the variability of the atmosphere it is not always possible to fly above the clouds.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be possible to fix a limit below which pilots must not fly?

Sir P. SASSOON: No.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Would the hon. Gentleman arrange for aerial police-traps for pilots?

ADMIRALTY ARCH.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the central gate of the Admiralty Arch was closed to traffic: whether the gate is to remain permanently closed;. and what is the reason for this action?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The gate in question, which was rarely used by traffic, was closed last month after consultation with the police, partly for the sake of appearance and partly to give additional security to foot passengers. It is proposed that the gate shall remain closed until traffic conditions render its reopening advisable.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have used it?

MERCANTILE MARINE (UNIFORMS).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider an amendment in the uniform regulations for mercantile marine officers so that when in full-dress uniform they may have the right of wearing a sword?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): If my hon. Friend will be good enough to send me his reasons for suggesting this change, I will consider them, but, as at persent advised, I doubt whether the alteration is one which should he made.

LIGHTSHIPS (VISITORS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 67.
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can now state whether the Regulation restricting those employed on lightships from receiving relations and friends on board these ships will be modified or rescinded?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed by the Trinity House, with whom I have been in communication, that, for the reasons which I have explained to my hon. Friend in answer to his previous question on the 11th instant, they are not prepared to modify or rescind their Order, which in substance has been in force since 1804, restricting those on light vessels from receiving visitors or friends on board their ships. The Elder Brethren add that the
conditions at lighthouses and light vessels respectively are entirely different; at the former the risk from the elements is absent and visitors can be received without risk of interference with the duties and the rest of the keepers.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange to publish monthly in the "Labour Gazette" a statement as to the number of houses commenced, the number in course of construction and the number completed during the month previous to each issue of the "Gazette"?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has consulted the Minister of Labour on the proposal who regrets that owing to the limited amount of space available in the "Labour Gazette" it will not be practicable to publish a statement. My right hon. Friend will, however, be always ready to supply my hon. Friend with the latest information available.

WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether the total number of new houses erected in Wednesbury, respectively, by the Wednesbury Town Council and by private builders since the 1st January, 1919?

Sir K. WOOD: Since 1st January, 1919, 358 houses have been erected with State assistance by the Wednesbury Town Council and 28 by private enterprise. Complete information as to the number of houses erected in the borough by private enterprise without State assistance is not available, but during the two years ended 30th September last the number so erected was 30.

SMALL BURGHS (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION).

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the shortage of houses and the heavy burden housing schemes place on the rates in the smaller burghs, he will consider the desirability of amending the Housing Act of 1924 to provide that burghs
having a gross valuation of £25,000 or under shall be eligible for the additional Exchequer contribution payable to rural areas?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. A proposal to grant a larger subsidy to smaller burghs was carefully considered in connection with both Acts of 1923 and 1924, but it was not found practicable to frame a scheme of special grants to particular areas.

BUILDING TRADE (OVERTIME).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether any application has been received by his Department from building trade operatives to work overtime; whether this application has been supported by the corporation of the town in question to pay overtime rates;. and what answer, if any, has been made by the Department?

Sir K. WOOD: No application has been received by my right hon. Friend's Department from building trade operatives to work overtime. It is understood that the operatives in the direct employment of one corporation have made such an offer. It is for the town council to decide whether they will accept it, and no consent on the part of the Department is required.

MEDICAL OFFICER, PLYMOUTH (DISMISSAL).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has received from the Plymouth Town Council a report of the proceedings culminating in the dismissal of Dr. Bushnell; whether he has approved this dismissal; and, if so, whether he will give the doctor an opportunity of having the charges against him specified in order that he may refute them?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend's approval is not required to the determination by the town council of their contract with Dr. Bushnell, and the last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that before a medical officer can be appointed by a borough council they must obtain the approval of my right hon. Friend? Has it not been a grave injustice that a medical man can be dismissed without any proper charge being made against him and without his having the opportunity of answering any complaints?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question was in the negative. The hon. Member is now referring to the question of dismissal. As I have already told him, the consent of the Minister of Health is not required for the termination of a contract. On the question of injustice I can give no opinion.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will my hon. Friend undertake to secure power, in order that justice may be done in these cases?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to interfere as little as possible with local authorities?

IMMATURE HERRINGS (FIRTH OF FORTH).

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now give any information resulting from the scientific investigation being made into the question of the capture of immature herrings in the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth, as the prolonged consideration is causing dissatisfaction amongst the fishermen in those waters?

Sir J. GILMOUR: An Interim Report on the investigations has been received by the Fishery Board for Scotland, but the preliminary conclusions drawn therefrom are not considered by the Board as justifying any restrictive action. The scientific investigations will be continued as expeditiously as possible, but owing to the complexity of the problem they must necessarily occupy a considerable time.

COAL MINES, DURHAM.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 75.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the total output of the mines in the County of Durham: the total amount received for
the sale of the coal produced; and the amount of profit per ton raised, together with the amounts paid for wages to the workmen, for royalties and wayleaves, and for directors' fees for the year 1924?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for Colonel LANE-FOX): As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:

—
Total Amount (estimated).
Amount per ton of Saleable Coal raised.



Tons




Output of Saleable Coal.
36,675,000
—


Costs of Production:
£
s.
d.


Wages
21,734,000
11
10¼


Royalties and Way-leaves (including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietor).
918,000

6


Other Costs
9,308,000
5
1


Total Costs
31,960,000
17
5¼


Proceeds from Sale of Coal.
33,918,000
18
6


Credit Balance*
1,958,000
1
0¾


Separate lnformation is not available with regard to Directors' fees; the amount is included with "Other Costs."


* These figures represent profits before deduction of such items as loan interest and taxation.

EAST GEINSTEAD POST OFFICE.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, with a view to enlarging the post office, at East Grinstead, his Department have ejected the occupiers of two cottages and are proceeding to pull the cottages down, and have refused to erect other houses in place of those pulled down or to reinstate the displaced families; and whether he will give orders forthwith to erect suitable alternative accommodation so as to prevent his Department adding to the already severe house shortage?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): It is not practicable to provide for the very urgent
needs of the Telephone and Postal Services at East Grinstead otherwise than by an enlargement of the post office over the property purchased for the purpose in 1909. The two tenants in question were not ejected from their cottages, but. gave up possession by voluntary arrangement. The question of the Post Office providing alternative accommodation for them does not therefore arise.

MOTORISTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Colonel DAY: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of motorists who were prosecuted for any offences under the Motor Car Acts during the year 1924; the number of fines that were inflicted upon them: the gross amount paid by the motorists in respect of these fines; and the number of prison sentences that were passed on motorists for breach of driving laws during 1924?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to the police returns made to the Home Office, 123,826 persons were prosecuted under the Motor Car Acts in 1924: 112,091 were fined and six were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. These figures do not, of course, include offences by motorists—such as drunkenness or offences against the revenue—which do not come under the Motor Car Acts. The total amount in respect of fines paid into the Roads Fund during the year was £109,546. This was mainly in respect of motor cars, but includes also fines for offences in connection with other vehicles.

Sir F. HALL: Does not my hon. Friend think that if motors are not driving to the danger of the public they should not continue to be exposed to these police traps which are set for the purpose of securing fines and benefiting the local rates?

Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman state the number of members of the. Government and of their supporters who have been prosecuted?

GOLD (COIN AND BULLION).

Colonel DAY: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of gold in this country and in other first-class nations; and, if so. can he state the amount in coin and in bullion?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information, as far as it can be derived from the published particulars. I regret that it is not possible to distinguish coin from bullion.

Following is the statement:

GOLD IN THE UNDERMENTIONED COUNTRIES AT THE END OF FEBRUARY, 1925.


United Kingdom.
£


Bank of England
126,800,000


Currency Note Reserve
27,000,000



£153,800,000

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

ABATEMENTS FOR EXPENSES.

Mr. GROVES: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a large number of clerks and shop assistants incur heavy expenses in fares, meals, and upkeep of status, and that they
do not receive relief on Income Tax payable by them for the expenses referred to; and whether he will, therefore, consider the revision of abatements on such earned incomes up to £360 per annum to effect an allowance commensurate with such expenses?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable in a matter of this kind to anticipate his Budget statement.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (PAY).

Captain A. EVANS: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inform the House of the total amount of yearly revenue derived from taxing the pay of Territorial officers during the period of their annual training. 1923 and 1924?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that the information for which the hon. and gallant Member asks is not available.

WALES (GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Sir C. KINL0CH-C00KE: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called 'to the resolution passed by the City Council of Cardiff with regard to the application of the Welsh National Memorial Association, asking that Wales may be treated on the same basis as other local authorities in England with reference to grants; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently been approached on the matter by the Welsh Parliamentary party, and has asked for further information as to the exact points which it is desired that he should consider.

STAMP DUTIES (TRANSFERS OF SECURITIES).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the handicap caused to Stock Exchange brokers generally and to the freedom of markets in registered securities caused by the conditions of the £1 stamp
on transfers of stocks and shares; and whether he can see his way to make some change in this respect?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the arguments which are used against the continuation of the £1 per cent. duty on transfers of stocks and shares, but he is unable to anticipate his Budget statement.

WALES (NATIONAL EMBLEM).

Captain A. EVANS: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that no representative of Wales served on either the 1923 Committee which was appointed to Select the faces of type and modes of display for Government printing or the Standing Committee on Coins, Medals, and Decorations, which were responsible for the change of the National Emblem of the Principality embodied in the State shield on Post Office stationery; and, in view of this, before such a change becomes general, will he undertake to consult representative. Welsh opinion on this subject?

Mr. GUINNESS: While the incorporation of the daffodil in the Royal Arms as the emblem for Wales was made on the recommendation of the Committees referred to, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this flower has been commonly adopted for this purpose since 1912 in designs of stamps. As to whether there is adequate historical basis for its selection and whether representative Welsh opinion was consulted in the first instance I would ask him to consult the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who was responsible for the decision in 1912.

Captain EVANS: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend would not direct the altering of the national emblem of Scotland without consulting hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, will he kindly afford the same facilities and courtesy to those who represent Wales?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is not a question of altering the emblem. It has been used on stamps, beginning with the National Insurance Act stamps, with the high authority of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, since 1912.

TELEGRAPHIC CABLES (AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 84.
asked the, Secretary of State for the Colonies the normal or average time of transmission of first priority Government messages to Australia and from Australia and to New Zealand and from New Zealand?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The average time of transmission in the cases referred to, that is from the arrival of a messenger at one cable office to the departure of a messenger from the other cable office would be, I understand, about an hour.

BRITISH NATIONALS (WAR LOSSES).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. RAMSDEN): 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the cases of those British nationals who were established in France, Belgium and Turkey, and who suffered loss during the War; and whether he will take steps to insure their receiving adequate compensation?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to questions by the hon. Members for the Isle of Thanet and Cardiff East on the 12th February. As regards damage suffered in Turkey, the Inter-Allied Commission for the assessment of these claims has been requested by His Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to expedite their work.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. J. BECKETT): 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say whether any understanding of any kind exists between the American and British naval authorities; and whether the possibility of American use of the proposed naval base at Singapore has ever been discussed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the second part of the question is plainly in the negative. I should find it easier to answer the first part of the question
if I could be confident that I understood it. As it is, I will confine myself to saying that as far as I know there is not—and I hope there never will be—any misunderstanding between the British and American naval authorities.

TURKEY (CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. RAMSDEN): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that certificates of origin for Turkey have now to be vised by a Turkish Consul, which is an inconvenience to British manufacturers and merchants; and whether he will make representations to the Turkish Government with a view to their accepting a certificate from a chamber of commerce?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The necessity for authentication by a Turkish Consul of certificates of origin for Turkey is laid down in Article 7 of the Commercial Convention signed at Lausanne on the 24th July, 1923. In the circumstances no useful purpose would be served by making the representations suggested by the hon. Member.

BRITISH SHIPPING (AMERICAN BILLS OF HEALTH).

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government recognises the right of American Consuls in the United Kingdom to withhold from British vessels clean bills of health on grounds other than those of the sanitary or health conditions of British ports or of the vessel or her crew; and whether an American Consul is justified under any treaty or agreement with the United States of America in refusing to issue a bill of health from Glasgow to Manila on the ground that he disapproves of the nature of part of a cargo which is not illegal in either Britain or the Philippines?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. There is no treaty or agreement between this country and the
United States regulating the issue of bills of health by the officers of the one country in ports of the other, and the issue of bills of health is governed by instructions given by the respective Governments. Neither Government is called upon to recognise the instructions given by the other.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (SMALLPOX).

Mr. LANSBURY (for Mr. CECIL WILSON): 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Health Report for the Straits Settlements for 1923, wherein it appears that in a population consisting of 341,091 Chinese, 62,870 Malays, and 34,869 Indians there was only one death from smallpox; and whether he can state what proportion of these coloured people had or had not been vaccinated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The report is under my consideration. Only one death in hospital is reported, but there appears to have been another fatal case in Malacca. I cannot say what proportion of the population is vaccinated. The report shows that during 1923 vaccinations or re-vaccinations numbered 30,769, and in the report on Malacca a reference appears to the effective vaccination of the population of that Settlement. The figures of population quoted by the hon. Member appear to refer to Singapore Island only.

JUBALAND.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the renewed severe outbreak of fighting, reported in the Press, between the Mohamed Zubeir and the Herti Somalis in Jubaland; whether there is any apprehension of the outbreak spreading: and what steps are being taken to deal with it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The message which has appeared in the Press to-day is in some respects more detailed than the information which I have received, but I can confirm the statement that the Colonial Government regard the disturbance as purely local and they do not
expect it to spread to other parts of Jutland. The force now on the spot is regarded as sufficient, if action can be taken before the rains increase the mobility of the Mohamed Zubeir, but a battalion of the King's African Rifles can be sent to Kismayu at once if the necessity arises. The Colonial forces have not up to the present been engaged, and the steps taken by the Government are of a precautionary nature.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DINING ROOMS).

Mr. BRIGGS: (by Private Notice) asked the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether it was a fact that, at the Kitchen Committee meeting this afternoon, it was to be decided whether or not the present Members' Smoking Room and Chess Room should be converted into an additional dining room, and the present Tea Room into a Members' Smoking Room, and whether the Kitchen Committee had taken steps to obtain the general feeling of Members with regard to this suggested alteration?

Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER: It is not the intention of the Kitchen Committee this afternoon to decide upon, but to consider, certain suggested alterations in the arrangement of the rooms of the House. It is not our desire, nor' is it within our power, to impose any alteration

without the consent of Mr. Speaker and the wish of the House itself. I may add that the question of interfering with the Chess Room has not been thought of. All that we desire to do is to improve the service of the House, and, certainly, to add to the comfort of hon. Members.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go with business to-night, if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the first five Orders. The suspension of the Rule is necessary in order to get through Supply. We must have Supply.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise a point in regard to the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot. I am bound to put the Motion forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 129.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clayton, G. C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cooper, A. Duff


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Cope, Major William


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briggs, J. Harold
Couper, J. B.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Briscoe, Richard George
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R-
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Atholl. Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crook, C. W.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C (Berks.Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H,
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Daiziel, Sir Davison


Barclay-Harvey, C M.
Burman, J. B,
Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Butler. Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Calne, Gordon Hall
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dixey, A. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Atton)
Drewe, C.


Berry, Sir George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethell, A.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Christie, J. A.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Blundell, F. N.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ellis, R. G.


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Ropner, Major L.


England, Colonel A.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rye, F. G.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Salmon, Major I.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lougher, L.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Finburgh, S.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Fleming, D. P.
Lumley, L. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Forrest, W.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacIntyre, Ian
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A
Smithers, Waldron


Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macmillan, Captain H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacPherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gower, Sir Robert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grace, John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grant, J. A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waddington, R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Murchison, C. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henn, Sir Sydney H
Nuttall, Ellis
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oakley, T.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hilton, Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells. S. R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wheter. Major Granville C. H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pease, William Edwin
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Homan, C. W. J.
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pielou, D. P.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pilcher, G.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Huntingfield, Lord
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hurst, Gerald B.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bi's)
Raine, W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wood. E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Jacob, A. E.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Remer, J. R.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rentoul, G. S.



Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rice, Sir Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Colonel Gibbs and Captain


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Douglas Hacking.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Connolly, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Groves, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grundy, T. W.


Barr, J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)


Batey, Joseph
Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Broad, F. A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromley, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hardie, George D.


Buchanan, G.
Fenby, T. D.
Harris, Percy A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.
Hayday, Arthur


Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hayes, John Henry




Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hirst, G H.
Palin, John Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rose, Frank H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D (Rhondds)


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Lansbury, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.


Lee. F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wignall, James


Livingstone, A. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smillie, Robert
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Stamford, T. W.
Wright, W.


Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murnin, H.
Taylor, R. A.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Allen




Parkinson.


Resolution agreed to.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Mothers' Pensions, and move a Resolution.

RURAL HOUSING.

Mr. HARRISON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of rural housing, and move a Resolution.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) will call attention to the question of Mothers' Pensions, and move a Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Move another Resolution!"]

Mr. THORNE: I have done what I was asked to do.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the question of International Labour Conventions, and move a Resolution.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION).

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I beg to move
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to remove the disqualification of Ministers of Religion from being appointed to city, borough, or district councils.
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is a simple one, and is intended to remove a very grave injustice from which a large body of men have suffered for over 40 years. Its object is to remove the disqualification of ministers of religion from serving on city, borough or district councils. There is a great inconsistency in the present law in this respect inasmuch as no such disqualification exists with regard to county councils, and we have the spectacle at the present time of one man being qualified to sit on the county council whilst his neighbour perhaps 100 yards away is disqualified from sitting on the borough or district council. I think hon. Members will agree that it is unfair to ministers of religion that they should suffer this disqualification and it is also unfair to the ratepayers because it limits their choice and rules out some very good men indeed. If these ministers have not complained, or at any rate have not complained loudly during the past 43 years, it does not seem right that because of their forbearance they should be compelled to suffer longer under this disability. If they were allowed to sit on district and borough councils I believe their presence would help the deliberations of those bodies and it would be a great advantage to have ministers of religion discussing important local affairs which bear upon the advancement of the conditions of people. Such men would be extremely useful also if borough councils were to emulate the example of this House and open their
proceedings with prayer, but I hope if they do so that the aldermen and councillors will not remain behind the Chair while prayers are being said, as some Ministers and ex-Ministers of this House do at the present time. It may be that these right hon. Gentlemen think they are past praying for and I noticed with great pleasure that the only Member of the Government present to-day during prayers was its one lady Member. The disqualification which I ask hon. Members to remove is a very old one. Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 says:
A person shall be disqualified for being elected … if and while he … (b) is in Holy Orders or is the regular minister of a dissenting congregation.
I should like hon. Members to notice that if a Minister of religion is out of work, and has not a regular congregation, he is eligible. They seem to have had more regard for unemployment in those days than is the case to-day. The Bill which I hope to introduce provides that from the date of the passing of the Act no person shall be disqualified on account of bring a minister of religion from being elected to a city, borough or district council.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Greenwood, Mr. Waddington, Colonel England, Sir Joseph Nall. Sir Wilfrid Sugden, and Mr. Duff Cooper.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL,

"to remove the disqualification of ministers of religion from being appointed to city, borough, or district councils." presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be road a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACT (1899) AMENDMENT.

Colonel COURTHOPE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Improvement of Land Act. 1899.
The need for this Bill has arisen owing to a doubt as to the interpretation of the
accumulation of Acts of Parliament dealing with settled estates and with owners' residences and the immediate cause of it is a correspondence which has taken place between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Board of Agriculture as to the right or power of owners of settled estates to borrow money from improvement companies for the improvement of mansion houses or residences on those settled estates, within the extended powers which the Law of Property Act of 1922, Section 65, purported to give them. Section 65 of that Act, as that Act did not come into immediate operation, was re-enacted in Section 3 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. I mention these matters with diffidence and regret, because it is a very bad case of legislation by reference, and very complicated and difficult to explain in simple language, but the Ministry of Agriculture, having discovered a doubt as to the interpretation of this Act and. consequently, of the borrowing powers of these owners of settled estates, suggested that I should take the course which I am now taking of asking the leave of the House to introduce this Bill.
Let me try to make clear the present situation with regard to these settled estates. From 1870 onwards Parliament has passed a series of Acts of Parliament extending the rights of the owners of settled estates to pledge the capital security of these estates for the purposes of works and improvements of one kind and another. Now the owner of a settled estate can do very nearly as much in that way as the owner of a freehold estate, and the common and convenient practice in the majority of cases has been that when the owner of a settled estate wishes to borrow money to carry out an improvement on his property he does so from one of the improvement companies established by Parliament for the purpose. When Parliament, in 1922 and 1923, passed the most recent extension of the rights of owners of settled estates to borrow and charge upon their properties, it was apparently overlooked that in the Improvement of Land Act, 1899, there is a proviso, in Section 1, Sub-section (3). limiting the powers of improvement companies to lend to owners of settled estates for the improvement of their mansions, and the object of this Bill is to repeal that proviso, so as to make it clear beyond all doubt that an owner of a
settled estate who wants to carry out this improvement may borrow from an improvement company for the purpose in the same way as he may, under the Acts of 1922 and 1923, borrow from some other source for the same purpose.
In these days since the War the need for this power has become rather general, because there are so many owners of settled estates who find it impossible to continue to live in the mansions on their properties, and they find that, in order to make them lettable, it is necessary to expend money on improvements, such as electric light, water supply, bath rooms, and things of that kind. They may go to their banker or other source and borrow money for this purpose, but if they go to an improvement company, established for this very class of business, it is doubtful whether they can do so, unless this Bill is passed. I am afraid this matter is so technical that I may have failed to make my meaning very clear to the House, but I thought it necessary to take this the only opportunity that I shall have of explaining briefly the purport of this Bill, which I hope and think will not be met with any opposition in any quarter of the House.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Courthope and Sir Douglas Newton.

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACT (1899) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Improvement of Land Act, Act, 1899," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL,

"to enable leaseholders of houses or premises whose original leases were granted for a period or term of not less than thirty years to compulsorily acquire the freehold estate and such other outstanding interests affecting the property by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, or any statutory modification thereof," presented by Mr. HAYDN JONES; supported by Mr. Clarry, Mr. Ellis Davies, Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple
White, Mr. C. P. Williams, Major Owen, Mr. George Hail, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Morris, Sir Robert Thomas, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. John; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Agricultural Rates (Additional Grant) Continuance Bill,

Elizabeth Fry Refuge and Refuge for the Destitute Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Summer Time Bill): Captain Elliot.

Report, to lie. upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the ease of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (New Capital) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move. "That the Debate be adjourned."
I do so for the reason that we have not the Bill in its final form as it left the Report Stage. We are still in possession of the Bill as it passed through Standing Committee B. Substantial Amendments were made yesterday, and I submit that without the Bill in its final form we are not in a position to pass it on Third reading.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a Motion which I can accept. I must assume that hon. Members were following the proceedings of yesterday, and are aware of the alterations that were then made.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I think, before the House proceeds to the Third Reading, it is fitting that a word should bo said, particularly on the attitude of. the Labour party towards this Bill, seeing that, we have been spoken of as its authors last autumn. Our view is not the same, not at all the same, as the prevalent view on the other side of the House. I suppose that most hon. Gentlemen on the other side would have desired a much larger measure of support by direct subsidy, judging by the fact that they did in their day give very much larger support to sugar, and presumably (hey would have continued that support. Our view is a radically different one. We take a quite different view of the whole of the functions of the agricultural industry of this country. Our idea is to promote the maximum use of the land for national resources and for the maintenance of the largest population. For that reason, we do not want agriculture to remain in the rut of slack farming in which it is to a very great extent to-day. We do not want to see it in any sense or in any part of the country the appendage of sport, or hampered by excessive attention to sport. I want to carry every one of my hon. Friends with me in adhesion to that
principle, and I aspire to a unanimous Vote on the Third Reading, though I know that in other parties there are different views representing the industry of refining, and so on, which affect us in quite a different way.
What was the situation as we found it when we brought in the sugar proposals We had the arable area declining; we had extremely low wages—wages falling—we had a terrible degree of unemployment; we had slack farming, which is estimated perhaps by the best experts as represented possibly by 20 per cent.—some experts put it at a much higher percentage—of the farmers of (his country, and we found ourselves with no power at all to control that slack farming, no power whatever to interfere with the interests of privileges or the interests of slackness. We have been charged as a party with indifference to the interests of agriculture, and that is profoundly an untrue charge. If it be the fact that urban interests govern some members in contradistinction to agricultural interests, it would be true to say that those hon. Members are guilty of indifferene to the agricultural interest. That is not our point of view at all. If there be opposition on the part of two or three of my hon. Friends to this Measure, it is because of their adhesion to the doctrine of freedom of trade, and I am glad that they feel so strongly the necessity of adhering to freedom of trade. I want to endeavour to show them that we did not for a moment forget the profound truth of the doctrine, that free trade is the most paying trade.
We found that situation in regard to agriculture. We found in regard to sugar a particular situation. The question had been raised at the election in 1923. The Farmers' Union approached every candidate on the question of sugar, and a great many Members of the Labour Party replied that, in view of the facts of the case, they were prepared to continue the help that was given by the Conservative Government. I was not willing to pledge myself in that direction, because I thought it infringed true Free Trade, and that another plan ought to bo devised. We could not leave the question of sugar alone, because it was our proper business to reduce the Sugar Duty. When we came in we found an immense sugar tax and a correspondingly large sugar subsidy.
We could not end either the tax or the subsidy at one stroke of the pen. We had to consider what would be the effect on employment, on wages, and on the operation of Free Trade. There were two factories then running. One of them, the Kelham Factory, absorbed the whole of the unemployed of Newark. All those would have been thrown on to the dole, and they would have remained on the so-called dole if nothing had been done beyond the rejection of the Sugar Duty. If nothing had been done, that factory, as we estimated, would this year have made a very heavy loss, a loss of £8,000, and it would undoubtedly have been closed. It is quite possible that the Cantley factory would have been closed too. It performed a peculiarly interesting function. It enabled one of the largest settlements of small holdings—one of the most successful if not the largest—to prosper. Smallholders in the neighbourhood of Cantley grew beet for the factory, and, having grown beet, they got good work in the factories for the months of the late Autumn and Winter. They would have been ruined, too.
Then it was our particular desire to remedy the universally admitted evil of scandalously low wages in agriculture, and we proposed the Wages Board. If, at the same time, we had abandoned the sugar industry, let the factories lie idle and men be turned off, and those who ran the factories correspondingly ruined, it would have been something contradictory to our avowed desire to benefit wages, while more land would have been laid down to grass, there would have been more unemployed, and lower wages would have resulted in agriculture. I believe what we did promise in the autumn to the sugar industry has already had an effect on agricultural wages. The position of some East Anglian counties was, in all conscience, low enough, but I think it might very well have been lower, if there had not been any prospect of success owing to the growing of sugar. Were we to sanction a subsidy or not? At the previous election, I declined to commit myself that I would, but, on further inquiry, it became perfectly evident to me that by far the cheapest way of maintaining the industry, in the circumstances, would be by the method of the subsidy. But it was
essential to combine that with a plan for bringing to an end the enormous, irregular, veiled subsidy, which was already in existence, and the plan now in charge of the Minister of Agriculture is just as much a plan for ending a subsidy as a plan for giving a subsidy.
I felt profoundly that in proposing this subsidy there was no infringement of the general principle of Free Trade. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer should be a sufficient guarantee for that. Among my Liberal friends there were ardent supporters of the Sugar Subsidy, including one they would recognise as their agricultural leader, Mr. Francis Acland, who would have been a valuable contributor to these Debates. I think the subsidy plan is only justified by the extraordinary need of education in our agricultural world, and by the extraordinary value of the beet industry in promoting education. Hon. Members more familiar with urban things forget that individually, and by long tradition, agriculture is not treated as other industries in this country. The State provides it with a Ministry, and with gigantic sums for education and for research. Every State finds that agriculture cannot get on without such help. I do not know of any Government which is able to keep clear of that kind of help. In this country, though behind other countries, it has a very large sum indeed, and in that sense agriculture is subsidised by educational advantages. Research is also subsidised.
Nine-tenths of the difficulty in our agriculture is not to make successful research, but to get the farmers to pay attention to it, and even where the county organisations, whose business it is to impart knowledge to the farmer, are most successful, it is an extremely small fraction of the farmers who pay any attention to the great advantages offered to them. As there is no power to control the farmer, or compel him to use these advantages, you have to consider how you will best induce him, and at the least cost. This form of educational grant brings the idea of modernised farming to his notice in a way no other does, inasmuch as it is combined with the idea of business, and I should say, comparing pound with pound spent in one way or the other, you might, perhaps, with advantage knock off something like an equivalent sum, and if you could not
find it in both ways, this would be the most profitable way in which that amount of money could possibly be spent in agricultural education.
That is partly because there is something about the beet industry, the difficulty of growing beet, and of treating beet in the factory, which has an almost magical effect upon the cultivator, and, in view of that effect, it was worth, in our judgment, an abnormal method to bring about the result. Great skill is needed. It, therefore, takes time to acquire that skill, and, in an industry conservative by nature, you have to change not only the character of the cultivator, but the other industry of the manufacturer. To do both at once requires very abnormal means, and the fact is that no State has established the sugar industry without Governmental help. On the other hand, no State has gone hack on its sugar-encouraging policy. In Holland, a Free Trade country, you have got an industry which is, on its own basis, a paying Free Trade industry, and therefore providing Holland with cheaper sugar than otherwise it would have. For those reasons, we were firmly convinced that we infringed no principle of sound economy in proceeding to treat the subsidy as a matter of most valuable educational progress, especially from our point of view, holding as we do that we have not taken agriculture seriously enough, and that we must strenuously promote modern methods in farming.
As a small illustration of the need of getting over the period of learning, it is a fact that in Prussia, in 30 years, the yield per acre of raw sugar was very nearly doubled. It is still the fact that there is not a very large area in Continental countries actually under sugar, but an area vastly greater is affected by the actual area under beet. You may, perhaps, grow in a rotation course one-eighth or one-tenth of your area under sugar. Therefore the area of farms affected amounts to a large figure. But the area affected is far greater than that, because you introduce into the country a new atmosphere. You get a modern industry brought into rural parts. You induce a habit of better manuring, of deeper cultivation, of pioneer farming. You provide for cattle a new food arising from the residue of the beets, and, altogether, you educate perhaps nine-tenths of the agriculture of the
country. For that reason, the tribunal that lately reported to the Government on the needs of agriculture, said that it was the peculiarity of the sugar industry that had actually made the farmers want education, which no other measures had hitherto done.
One or two of my hon. Friends, I think, have only been affected in their hesitation in regard to the Bill by the feeling that we had been too generous in fixing the terms. I would like to say a word on that, because I was responsible for the degree of inquiry which was made. There was, of course, an inquiry as to what the sugar beet society and the growers themselves said would be required by way of price to induce the farmers to grow beet. They put the necessary figure at a very far higher level than the figure upon which we pitched. In addition to that, there was a very careful inquiry by the Treasury, which exercised its usual ingenuity in trying to bring the figure down. I, myself, thought it very likely that the figure we were fixing was too low. Indeed, I think it was just adequate to get the farmers to grow beet, but, speaking for myself, I do not think the investment offered resulting from the subsidy is a particularly attractive one at all, and I think that we have done very well to get just sufficient factories put up—it is true, costing an immense sum of money—to have the experiment tried in various and typical parts of the country. I think the event justifies the scale that was adopted. Remember, also, that we have brought the term to an end, and the Minister has made it absolutely clear to all concerned that there is no prospect of a prolonged or a permanent subsidy, and the investors are not relying on its prolongation.
I think one of my hon. Friends said that when we spoke of preferring a State system I, at least, was rendering lip service to the Socialist idea. I would like to tell my hon. Friends what, I think, would have been a very great improvement, and a great economy. If we had the power to control agriculture, we could have done the thing very much cheaper. Supposing all the land fit for growing beet were Crown land, I certainly believe the very capable land agents who manage the Crown land could get the necessary quantity of beet at a lower figure, and that because the owner, without actual compulsion, can very
easily get his tenant, at least, to give an open mind to a thing. But if you have no power like that, such as would arise from State control or ownership, or State leasing, superior leasing, of the land, you undoubtedly have got to pay more. I do not think the State is paying too much, but there would be advantages in the method of dealing with the land which we advocate. Hut we had no power to put in force the measures that would have given us that degree of control, and if we had said, "Well, in spite of that, we will have State factories," could we have got the money? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer have found £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, perhaps, which would have been required to build an adequate number of factories, and if he had, which is more than doubtful, the House would certainly not have allowed him to put the loan, as it would have been, into existence.
Therefore, we had, as every one of my hon. Friends will realise, a choice, in which it was not very doubtful what we ought to do. In view of what we did up and down the country for education, employment, wages, we had to consider, naturally on the other side, the advantages of maintaining the appearance of doctrinal purity and allowing things to go downhill in wages, in employment, and in education. We were not prepared to sacrifice our ideals of efficient agriculture or to sacrifice the workers in favour of what would have been merely crying for the moon ! There are differences of temperament between the reformists and the intransigents. On these benches I think we are all reformists. We seized the opportunity in this case to show that we were practical Free Traders rather than doctrinaires. Our method, which, fortunately, the Minister is following out, was most decidedly in the interests of labour as well as in the interest of our national resources, and therefore of the maximum of population in the long run. I hope we shall have that policy carefully considered, sustaining the maximum population on the land with the highest standard of life, as attributes to really serious agriculture. In the end it will benefit the town as well, because it should prove to be an economic industry producing in the end cheaper sugar. It
accords with the Labour party's view of its duty to use the land to the fullest possible national advantage.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I want to wish this Bill the very best of luck during its last stage through this House because I believe it to be a Bill which, if put on the Statute Book, will be one which will benefit very much a class of the community which requires all the help that can possibly be given to it—I refer to the agricultural labourer. I know from experience what a great boon a sugar factory is to the countryside, because I am lucky enough to have situated in my constituency at Kelham a sugar beet factory, and I can tell hon. Members this, that this factory, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself said just now, has practically solved the unemployment problem in that district. It has solved it also at a most difficult time for the land, during those months when work is at a standstill; then is the time that this factory has come in, and it has been the greatest boon to the countryside. I hear, and am very pleased to hear, that under the admirable measures of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that there are other sugar factories springing up all over the country. I can only hope that these sugar factories will be as useful to the countryside as the. Kelham factory has been to the country round about my neighbourhood.

Mr. PALING: Has the factory to which the Noble Marquess refers solved the unemployment question in the town of Newark?

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: This factory for the last two years has taken up practically every man unemployed in Newark. It has done even more than that, for many men employed have come from as far afield as Grantham. Let us see how in a very few years this infant industry is going to help, first of all the agricultural labourer, and, secondly, the farmer. When you grow sugar on a farm, for every 100 acres you have under beet you have to employ 10 extra men. If we are going in this country to produce a quarter of the amount of sugar imported by us in 1922, we will have to employ 40,000 more men on the land and 30,000 men in the sugar beet factories. I think hon. Members will agree with
me that this would be a great boon to the working man to-day. Then, again, a sugar factory is a help to another industry. It helps the coal mining industry. If we could produce 3,520,000 tons of sugar it would involve the sending to the factories an amount of coal no less than 300,000 tons, and 120,000 tons of limestone as well. Also if we could produce in this country the amount of sugar which we imported in 1922 it would involve from £15,000,000 to £25,000,000 of capital, and £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 paid in wages to the workmen. I just want to say one more thing, and that will be a few remarks to the managers of these sugar beet factories. I do not believe that the sugar beet factories are paying enough to the farmer for his beet. I think at the moment they are paying the farmer 44s. a ton. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, perhaps it is 54s.: I was told it was 44s.

Mr. CADOGAN: What is it?

An HON. MEMBER: 54s. now.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I understand, on the authority of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bye (Colonel Courthope) that it is now 49s. per ton.

Colonel COURTHOPE: The prices ruling at present, to which reference is made, is that for a three years' contract the average is a minimum of 49s. for the first year, and 54s. for the second and the third years.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I hear that it is 49s. In any case I do not consider that the farmers are paid enough. The sugar beet factories ought to pay the farmer 54s. or 55s. a ton. I believe if they did that the farmers would be keen to grow bee!., and the sugar beet industry will become really a flourishing industry in the future. I have here a balance-sheet of the sugar which we are growing on our own estate which is about 20 miles from Kelham, but I am afraid it would not be much use, seeing that it is based on 44s. a ton. I hope hon. Members of all parties will vote for this Bill. I believe that the Liberal party as a whole will vote for the Bill. Their deputy-leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a statement which showed that he was in favour of this
infant industry being helped along. I am perfectly certain also that hon. Members on this side of the House will vote for it. I cannot see how the majority of my hon. Friends of the Socialist party can vote against the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Agriculture has supported it here to-day, and on previous occasions. I end up what I have to say by hoping that the Bill will got its Third Beading by a large majority.

Mr. P. HARRIS: This is the one great Measure that has appeared between this and the last Parliament. it has beer, greeted with great enthusiasm in many parts of the House, and apparently it is likely to have a smooth passage. It is a very interesting combination—that of the ex-Minister of Agriculture and the present Minister of Agriculture, because the ex-Minister spoke with great pride that this Bill was his own Bill, his own off-spring, of which he was not ashamed, while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill now will be willing, I expect, to give him every credit for it. It is a very curious combination. We have heard to-day the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister telling us that one of the main purposes of this Bill is that it is going to be a great help to the farmers, and revolutionise the spirit of the countryside. I hope that may be so, but it is rather an expensive price to pay for departing from sound economic principles and committing the nation to very heavy financial liability. If we desire the education of the farmer in the methods of agriculture suggested, i do most respectfully submit that some more suitable and some more economic means might be found than by a subsidy of this kind.
A subsidy on sugar has always been an attraction to Governments desirous of stimulating the agriculture of this country or indeed any other. All parties have been more or less guilty, but I think all the arguments which have been applied so effectively, to giving a subsidy to sugar can quite effectively be applied to almost every branch of agriculture. I remember not so very long ago a campaign being organised in favour of stimulating the growing of tobacco in this country. We were supplied with literature and many arguments, and even in one or two parts of the country vigorous attempts were made to establish tobacco-growing as a
commercial proposition. If this subsidy achieves its purpose we will have from parts of the country not suited to the growing of sugar, petitions, deputations and every effort made to get the subsidy extended to other branches of agriculture. A strong case was not so very long ago made out for giving a subsidy on corn growing. That was abandoned because it was proved to involve the country in unlimited liability. It was one of the victims of the Geddes axe.
Is the right hon. Gentleman who brought in this Measure sure that this sugar industry, with its subsidies, might not also involve us in a very large liability, if the scheme were a success, if it achieved its purpose and proved profitable both to sugar growers and to the sugar factories? Inevitably, factories will spring up all over the country, and we will find that our liability is something very much larger than half a million, and may be of such a character that it will be a. heavy drain on the Exchequer. If, on the other hand, it is a failure, we have thrown our money away without benefiting the farmer or anyone concerned. In my view, this is a thoroughly bad principle.
In starting agriculture in this country on the slippery slope of subsidies we are avoiding the real issue. There is no reason why agriculture in England should not prosper, as in other parts of the Empire. It is sometimes forgotten that in New Zealand, Canada and Australia agriculture is able to stand on its own legs. There it is industry that is protected; agriculture is subject to free importation. Nearly all the farmers in other parts of the Empire are Free Traders. The reason they can make agriculture prosper is because they have a satisfactory land system. That is the root cause; and until there is a satisfactory land system in this country none of these makeshifts will relieve agricultural depression.
If the sugar industry prospers, if beet-growing is stimulated by this Bill, the assessment of the land will be immediately increased. We have in this Bill no guarantee that rents will not be increased, but, supposing the landlords are benevolent, at least one of the effects of sinking this large amount of capital in
this industry with the purpose of making beet-growing an integral part of agriculture here will be an increase in assessments. If assessments increase the amount payable in rates will go up, and a large part of the advantage of the subsidy will go not into the hands of the farmers or the landlords but into the pockets of those responsible for raising money for local purposes in the form of rates. In my view we are establishing a wrong principle in a wrong way, and with very doubtful advantage to agriculture in the long run.
One curious feature to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is the large amount of foreign capital which, apparently, is being invested in this industry. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Agriculture seemed to doubt whether the subsidy was large enough. He told us that a committee which inquired into the subject recommended a very much higher level, and he went on to say that he considered the subsidy too low. Apparently foreign investors do not think it too low; apparently they think the subsidy offered is likely to give them a very satisfactory return for their money, and that makes me doubt whether the State is not making a bad bargain.
Whether it is making a bad bargain or not, when we start on subsidies it is almost impossible to protect the public, and, what is worse, when once subsidies are started it is very difficult to stop them. The subsidies under this Bill will ultimately come to an end, but one can imagine the outcry that will be raised and organised when that happens. One can imagine the deputations sent by farmers and by workers in factories: one can imagine the people who have invested their money in this infant industry—the widows and orphans—Hocking to their Members of Parliament, and making out a strong case for the continuance of the subsidy to keep the industry from ruin. We saw what happened in regard to the McKenna Duties and the motor industry, and it is not an unfair thing to prophesy that when we approach the date when this proposed subsidy is to end every effort will be made to continue it, and to make it part of the permanent system of the country. In passing this Bill we are creating a vested interest, which is bound to be organised, like the licensing trade,
very difficult to destroy, very powerful, and for that reason, and if for that reason only, I myself am going to protest against legislation of this kind as being against the general well-being of the country, against sound economic principles and against the interest of the finances of the nation.

Colonel COURTHOPE: I would like to make quite clear to the House what price the factories are paying for their beet. I endeavoured, in a sentence, to explain it when my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) was speaking, but I have since had an opportunity of getting one of the most recent contracts, which I now hold in my hand, and I think it may interest the House to be informed on this point. The minimum price in the up-to-date contracts which are being signed now, contracts for three years' cultivation, is 49s. a ton for the first year of a new beet factory only, and for the subsequent years the minimum price is 54s.

Mr. RILEY: Are those figures contingent on this scheme going through?

Colonel COURTHOPE: If the subsidy is not paid, certainly these prices will not be paid either. These contracts are based on the assumption that this Bill passes. The 49a. a ton as the minimum applies only to the first year of new factories. In the first year of new contracts for old factories the price is 54s. per ton. In addition to that minimum, which is based on 15½ per cent. beetroot, 2s. 6d. per ton is paid for every 1 per cent. above the basic 15½ per cent. Last year, I may remind the House, the average right through the 114,000 or 115,000 tons which were dealt with in the Cantley factory was a full 1 per cent. above the basic figure, and on the average everyone got an extra 2s. 6d. There is a further bonus on the total tonnage—a bonus of 1s. per ton on every 10,000 tons above 50,000 going into the factory. At Cantley this year we have had 100,000 tons, and everyone got an additional 5s. per ton on the top of the other price. The average price paid for beet by Cantley was within a halfpenny or so of 61s. 6d. per ton, which, I think everyone will admit, is a very substantial price. There is also a provision in these contracts that if the price of sugar rises there is to be an additional 1s. per ton for beet for
every 1s. above 44s. per cwt. in the price of sugar. The farmer not only gets the advantage of any improvement in the quality of his beet, but he also gets the advantage, or a large share of the advantage, in the case of an improved selling price of sugar.
I do not think I should be justified in wearying the House with more details of these contracts. I think I have said enough to justify my statement that the price paid is a very good one, and that the factories are fully carrying out the intention of both this and the preceding Ministry in ensuring that the benefit of this subsidy should go to the agricultural industry. I would like to make one reference to what the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now said as to the cost of this subsidy. It is calculated—I did not make the calculations myself, but they were made by reliable people, and I believe they are on the conservative side—that the additional employment given by these factories will reduce the expenditure on unemployment dole by a sum considerably in excess of the amount that can become payable as subsidy; so that from the actual point of view of cash payments the State stands to be a gainer, and not a loser, by the establishment of these factories through the assistance given by the subsidy.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In what period is that—the first four years, or the 10 years?

Colonel COURTHOPE: The calculations, I believe, were made for the first four years, and the effect will be even greater in the subsequent years.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what was the price paid at Kelham in the last two or three years?

Colonel COURTHOPE: I have not got the full details of Kelham, but the price was on the same contract as at Cantley, only Kelham did not get 100,000 tons of beet, as Cantley did, and, consequently, the additional 5s. a ton was not paid. The average sugar content was, I believe, practically the same, and the growers got the 2s. 6d. a ton above the minimum, so, presumably, they got about 50s. or 57s. a ton; but they did not get the 5s. bonus for the 100,000 tons.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: I propose to offer one or two words of criticism to explain that, while I accept the object which this Bill has in view, I share the fear expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) as to the danger of this Bill creating a great vested interest. None the less, I think the policy of this Bill, as far as its practical effects are concerned, is the most useful contribution made to agriculture for many years. The figures given by the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) as to the effect of this sugar industry in absorbing the unemployed are in themselves a great testimonial to the practical utility of this scheme. There can also be no question as to its value in extending the area of arable land. In 1919 there were 4,000 acres in this country under beetroot crops, and last year there were 41,000 acres. As the Minister of Agriculture suggested, it is possible that if the assistance now being given to the sugar beet industry had not been continued, at least 20,000 acres less would have been grown, and that would have been disastrous. None the less, I regret, as a previous speaker has done, the lack of safeguards in this Bill with respect to the money devoted from the public purse. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said that one of the results, owing to the lack of safeguards in this Bill, will be that in the course of a few years a considerable proportion of the benefits which it is intended to give to agriculture will find its way by means of increased rents and increased land values into the pockets of the landowners. That is my main objection to this Bill. I regret that the Minister cannot see his way to insert in this Measure, as was done under the Corn Production Act, some provision which would make it illegal on the part of the owners of the land to increase their rates while this subsidy continues. That safeguard is not in the Bill, and consequently there is a great danger that a considerable proportion of the benefit will find its way into the pockets of the owners of land. Those are the facts.
The Minister of Agriculture said that last year something like £265,00 was due under this policy to be paid to three or four companies manufacturing sugar,
and that in the coming year something like £500,000 will be due to those three factories. I understand that in the current year an additional eight factories are going to be erected. The three factories are now entitled to something like £500,000 a year, and there are eight-new factories to be erected; and therefore, when they are all in operation, there is every likelihood that by next year the liability of the taxpayer will be over £1,000,000. This not only means a larger annual subsidy and an increase in cost owing to the extension of these operations, but it also means an increasingly large amount of agricultural land being placed under arable cultivation for beet-growing purposes. Last year, we are told that 41,000 acres were under beet cultivation for the requirements of three factories only, but with 11 factories in operation it looks more than probable that there will be at least 150,000 acres of arable land placed under beet cultivation. One of the effects of that will be that a considerable amount of land is going to be improved in regard to its cultivable value.
The Minister of Agriculture has already told us that it is common experience that a beet crop makes arable land much more productive than ordinary crops. I notice that the main society concerned in advocating the extension of beet sugar growing states that sugar beet is a valuable crop which increases the yield of all other crops with which it is grown in rotation, and they state that in Germany it is estimated that a sugar beet crop increases the yield of wheat by 15 per cent. With regard to cereal crops it is claimed that the development of sugar beet growing increases the yield at less cost per acre, and will no doubt encourage more arable farming. Therefore my deduction is that it is inevitable that this new industry will add to the increased value of the land, and will give a reason to the owner in the course of a few years for asking for an increased rent.
It may be said by hon. Members opposite that landlords will not do that. May I remind the House that in recent years we have had a most striking illustration as to what this policy does without proper safeguards. Under this Bill not only is there a subsidy to the manufacturers of sugar but there is a definite guaranteed price to the farmer for growing beet.
We have heard the figures which have been given in this Debate and we are told that the guaranteed price never sinks below 44s. per ton. In principle that is exactly what took place under the Corn Production Act of 1917, which fixed the guaranteed price. In 1923 the Minister of Agriculture in the Conservative Government of that year admitted that from 1919 to 1921, when the Corn Production Act was withdrawn, rents in agriculture had risen 25 per cent. in this country. I recall not only this effect of increasing rents, but I would like to remind the House of the statement made by Sir Richard Winfrey on the 5th December last, in which he referred to the effect of the Corn Production Act of 1917 as increasing the value of agricultural land and the price farmers had to pay when they bought their holdings. One of his statements was:
In my own constituency farms which were changing hands before the War at £40 per acre have recently changed hands at £70 and £80 per acre due to the conditions prevailing under the Corn Production policy.
I want to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that there is a lack of safeguards in this Pill to protect the public interest and public money, and that is a great defect in this Measure. I hope that in any further proposals, although I admit this is a matter of public policy, if assistance is to he given for various purposes of this kind we must have in measures of this character public safeguards to protect the public in regard to the money that is being spent.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I have noted with much pleasure the smooth passage which this Bill has enjoyed in its progress through the House, and I am sure there are many hon. Members on the Government side who will be grateful for the constructive criticisms which have been made by hon. Members opposite. We welcome the spirit which has animated hon. Members in endeavouring to place on the Statute Book a Measure which we feel cannot fail to be of considerable advantage to the agricultural community. We on this side of the House who recently sat on the opposite side can claim that we assisted the late Minister to establish the Wages Board, and that Board together with the Fair Wages Clause in this Bill will, I hope, ensure labour receiving adequate remuneration for the
services which it renders for the industry. There can be no doubt that this Bill will add to the volume of employment in agricultural districts, and I feel myself that it is better business to do all that is possible to increase the production of land which is reasonably good and suitable for farming rather than to try and bring into cultivation those marginal acres which cost so much and which can never be made to yield good and profitable results. Those marginal acres may perhaps sometimes give a fair return when trade is good, but when there is a slight slump their cultivation becomes unprofitable, and those who have been directing operations lose their capital and labourers their jobs.
It is said that farmers are unable to foresee the market return they will get from the seed they sow because agricultural operations extend over so long a period and markets fluctuate greatly. Few crops achieve their cycle in less than 12 months, and in the case of fruit and other special crops sometimes a period of years is involved. Therefore farmers are under a special disability as compared with other trades. Under the provisions of the Bill, however, that difficulty is solved so far as this one crop is concerned, because when farmers put in the sugar beet seed they know that the market is assured to them. One difficulty is thus swept away, and their problem is reduced to one of production, and optimum production only. In many areas situated in close proximity to the factories where the land is good and not excessively rich, the beet crop will be found the most productive and remunerative that can possibly be grown on that land. I hope producers and farmers will take note in good time of the facilities which this Bill provides. I hope they will do so during the period that the subsidy runs at its highest point, because it is by doing this that they will be able to obtain the maximum advantage. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he should take immediate steps, because the season is practically upon us, to broadcast and disseminate information regarding the advantages to be derived from this new crop, and above all as to the best method of cultivating it.
Another point to which I would like to direct attention is that we require better beet. We want beet which will give a
heavier yield per acre in proportion to the amount of labour expended upon it, and also a beet which will give a heavier and larger content per beet grown. In the same way that we have been able to increase the milk yield of the cow in a short number of years from 400 gallons annually to nearly double that figure, so ought we to be able to do something to get the beet to increase its yield of sugar. I am reinforced in this view by a resolution recently passed by the Royal Agricultural Society, inviting the Minister of Agriculture to direct his attention to this matter. The resolution suggested that genetic research and field trial experiments should be undertaken to improve sugar beet. If we could increase the yield of sugar in beet from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent.—by no means an impossible attainment—we should add, on the basis of the ordinary crop, approximately £5 to the return obtained by the farmer, and something like £750,000 to £1,000,000 more would be paid to agriculturists who grow the beet. I hope the Minister will use his great influence with his Department, and, above all, with the Development Commission, because it seems to be a matter which they might properly take up, to see that action is taken on these lines. I believe that by broadcasting information on the question of sugar beet, and by scientific research, the Departments can do, perhaps, even more than we in this House are able to do by placing this Bill on the Statute Book.

Mr. SPENCER: I should like to ask the Minister what his opinion now is in regard to the last Amendment, which was moved last night, relating to the price of 35s. per cwt., in view of the remarks which have just been made by an hon. Member on the benches behind him. The right hon. Gentleman's answer last night was that he could not accept the Amendment because it would be practically impossible to say at any time when the standard price of sugar was 35s. per cwt. He said that it might be one figure in Liverpool, another in Manchester, and another in London. But the hon. Member behind him has distinctly told him now that the farmers will be able to say when it is 44s., and will be able to regulate the price of their beet by that standard. It must necessarily follow that if the farmers put a clause in their
contract saying that when the price of sugar reaches 44s. they are to have another 1s., it must be possible to ascertain the corresponding standard if the price were 35s.; and yet the right hon. Gentleman last night could not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, the effect of which would have been that, when the price of sugar was over 35s., there would be a reduction in the subsidy. If the argument I have mentioned is correct, I think it follows that the Amendment could have been accepted last night, and that the Department would have been able to carry it out. I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman as a beginning.
For certain reasons I do not desire to oppose this Bill, but I think it may be said that, if any party ought to have opposed it, it is the party opposite. They are constantly twitting us on this side that, if ever the principle of Socialism is applied to industry, it is bound to fail. This Bill is a strange mixture of Socialism and private enterprise, but the party opposite is ready to accept Socialism when it is going to foster private enterprise. Do not let us disagree any more as regards the efficacy of the principle of Socialism when it is applied. By this Bill you say that Socialism is all right, and that you believe in it to a certain extent, but you only believe in it when it is going to be used for the further fostering, protection and upholding of the principles of private enterprise and capitalism.
So far as we are concerned on this side, our wish with regard to this Bill would have been that, while it fostered this new-industry, the industry, if it proved a success, should be owned and controlled by the State and in the interests of the State. I quite agree that, as has been already said, we have to meet a serious problem in agriculture, and probably at this stage we cannot afford to differ seriously as to the principles we are going to apply in order to foster the success of agriculture. If I were asked whether I desired to have Protection, or whether I desired to see agriculture pass away as one of the foundation industries of this country, or whether I would accept the third alternative of applying a subsidy, I should unhesitatingly say that I would rather apply a subsidy than adopt either of the other two alternatives. We on this side of the House want to foster agricul-
Cure, but I agree with the opinion that has been expressed by an hon. Member below the Gangway and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), that there are not sufficient safeguards in this Bill with regard to the public interest, and I am certain also that there are not sufficient safeguards with regard to the interests of the agricultural labourer.
When the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) spoke on this question, his chief point was that hitherto the beet-sugar factory in the neighbourhood of Newark had been able to absorb the whole of the unemployed in Newark, and had been able to pay the standard rate of wages for that district. I think, however, that everyone will agree that, so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned, whether upon farms in general or upon farms where beet is grown, the wage that is being paid to him now is not an adequate wage to sustain him. There are two interests which are going to be safeguarded by these proposals. Undoubtedly, those who put capital into the factories are going to be safeguarded for a certain period: they are going to be assured of a return on their capital; and the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Colonel Courthope) has distinctly told us that the farmers have been strong enough to ensure that, if this Bill goes through, the prices under their contracts will be remunerative to them. The only interest that is not safeguarded in this case, although public money is going to be lavishly furnished to foster this industry, is the interest of the agricultural labourer. Can anyone say—

Colonel COURTHOPE: There are the Wages Boards.

Mr. SPENCER: There is no safeguard whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question which I put to him last night, said that the machinery that is set up—whether it be wages boards or councils—for ascertaining and deciding what the wages shall be, affords no power under this Measure to enforce the decisions arrived at. Suppose you have a number of farms on which beet is grown which is sold to these sugar factories, a Whitley Council is sot up, and, probably, eight out of ten of the farmers say, "Yes, we will accept the decision of the council
and pay the wage they have fixed." If two of those farmers refuse to pay that wage—

Colonel COURTHOPE: It is not the farmers; it is the factories.

Mr. SPENCER: I mean the factories—there is no power to force those factories to pay that wage. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman last night, and he agreed, and he promised—to what extent he is going to be able to carry it out I do not know, but ho said he was not sanguine— that, if it were possible, he would put something into the Bill in another place to give the power we require. Seeing that public money is to be given to the extent that it is, and that the other two interests are to be fully protected, I think we have a right to ask that the interests of labour in the factories for the period during which the subsidy is given shall be equally protected. I agree that the result of these activities will be, as has been said, to improve the land considerably, and that it will go a long way to improve agriculture; but are we sure that, when agriculture has been improved at the expense of a State subsidy, a considerable proportion of the subsidy will not find its way into the pockets of the landlords? If that is going to be the net result of this Bill, it is not going to be finally in the interests of agriculture, and, much as all of us desire to see the countryside awakened into life and activity, and to establish as far as possible factories of this character which will give work in the rural districts, we are desirous at the same time of seeing that, so long as public money is devoted to this object, this interest shall be fully protected.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Before the Debate closes and this Bill passes to another place, I should like to intervene for a few moments to express the view which I and some of my Friends are disposed to take as to what is, undoubtedly, a very important legislative Measure. My own attitude towards this Bill is not in the least determined by purely abstract considerations. I quite agree with what was said in more quarters of the House than one in the Debate that we had only last night, namely, that you have to judge of these matters, not simply by saying you are a Free Trader or you are a Protectionist, but by getting closer to the
practical effect of the Measure in question. Although I do not for a moment pretend that my own sympathy, and, it may be, my own bias, is not strongly on one side in that historic controversy, at the same time I am perfectly willing to see an experiment made, if the circumstances are shown to be such as to justify a departure from what might be preconceived theory.
Therefore, the view which my Friends and I take in this matter, although it may be suspected of being coloured by our general economic principles, is formed from a desire to consider the Bill on its merits; but, while that is so, I want to point out that it is really quite impossible to regard a matter of this sort as though it has not in fact a Protectionist effect. The late Chancellor of Exchequer, whom all Free Traders gratefully recognise as a stout supporter of their principles, made a most gallant effort, when he first suggested Government support for these proposals, to make out that somehow a subsidy on beet sugar was quite consistent with Free Trade principles. With great respect to that most eminent man, that is a perfectly impossible proposition. Such a proposal may be right or it may be wrong, but to say that it is not Protectionist in effect is really to fly straight in the face of perfectly obvious considerations. To mention only one, Protection, whatever else it means, means, I suppose, a system by which you impose duties at the ports upon imports from overseas, without having a corresponding or countervailing excise duty on the same product when it is made within your own shores. As we all know, one of the methods which was at one time proposed for encouraging the beet sugar industry was to have an import duty on sugar coming to this country from overseas, and to have no Excise duty on sugar grown here. That may be right or wrong, but what is the good of saying it is not a Protectionist proposal? You do not thereby condemn it by calling it by that name. You do not thereby approve it by admitting that that is its effect. But to say that the proposal to put a duty on an imported article, and to have no corresponding Excise duty upon the article which is made in our own country, is not in principle Protection is quite inaccurate. The new proposal is intended as a substitute
for that. It proposes on the one hand to grant this very substantial subsidy, and on the other hand it proposes to impose an Excise duty. The circumstance that you are putting the thing in a different way—it may be in a better way; it may be with larger results to this interest or that—does not in the least alter its effect. Therefore, while for my part I am very willing that this should be considered apart from abstract theory and on its merits, it really is a very unsatisfactory way of approaching the subject to dispute that really it is in itself in the nature of a Protectionist proposal.
The real truth is, of course, for good or for evil, whether you proceed by the method of tariffs on imports, whether you proceed by the method of remission of duty on home-produced goods, or whether you proceed by the method of bounties on home production, these things are different ways of giving effect to the same economic principle. Therefore it is quite plain that this must be regarded as a Protectionist proposal. I am quite willing to concede, and I quite frankly admit, that if you have to choose between different methods, some considerations which may be regarded as objections to a tariff do not attach to the same extent and with the same force to a bounty or a proposal of this kind. For one thing—and it is a very great thing—no one can dispute what is the extent to which public money raised out of the taxes is being devoted to this particular purpose. It is a great thing to have in black and white and in plain terms what is the price you are paying as far as the taxpayer is concerned. One of the greatest objections to the method of tariff undoubtedly is, as every candid controversialist will admit, that it is so extremely difficult to calculate what really is the burden that is being borne by the community. At any rate here we have it fairly plain, and it is a very substantial sum. It works out at something like £500,000 in the first year, working up I daresay to £2,000,000 in the year following. I do not think any Member of the House of Commons is open to rebuke or reproach because he expresses, as I express, a very grave concern that so large a burden should be deliberately put upon the taxpayers.
Then I sympathise very much with what has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and others, that
if you are going to do this surely you ought to take the most abundant steps to secure that it is done under conditions under which the public interest is protected. I wish to be candid with hon. Members above the Gangway. I do not very greatly admire the Amendment that was moved from their ranks yesterday, which would have provided that after 10 years there should be an issue of shares by these companies which were to bo allotted to the State, and which would then make the State, as I understand, a holder to a very substantial amount in the companies, because it seems to me they were not perhaps distinguishing between two very different things, one of which is the capital of an enterprise of this sort, and the other is its revenue expenditure. I do not imagine for a moment that in 10 years' time any one of these subsidised companies will really have a capital which represents as much as half the subsidy they have received. The subsidy, of course, goes in relief of working expenses I do not know any body of public opinion which ex-presses more powerfully and with more justification its abhorrence of watered capital and of excessive capitalisation than hon. Members above the Gangway. I do not admire the form of their proposal, but in so far as they were putting forward a claim that if you are going to use public money to subsidise and promote a particular interest you are bound to see that the public interest itself is concerned. I think they were absolutely right. If it had been possible, for example, to devise a method by which the rate of profit made by these subsidised companies was strictly limited, it seems to me that would be a good and perfectly just thing to do. We do it in the case of gas companies, not because they are subsidised by public money but because they are entrusted with the administration of a monopoly in which the public interest must be allowed to prevent excessive profits being made, and I think it ought to have been possible for those who propose schemes of this sort to devise some practical control, not necessarily in the form suggested yesterday by some hon. Members above the Gangway, but still practical control, to prevent the possibility of this all inuring in improper and preposterous proportions to the special advantage of particular interests.
There is a second consideration, which I think was very inadequately dealt with on the Report stage. I acknowledge frankly that it was the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and those associated with him who raised the question in Committee. They are all, I hope, anxious to co-operate honestly in securing that if this public money is going to be granted to these private enterprises, there should be the fullest opportunity for the representatives of the taxpayers to know how it is used, and how it is spent. It really is quite preposterous that any other view should be taken. I regret very much indeed that it was not thought possible yesterday to secure, not merely that the balance-sheet should be made public, which really is going to provide no one with very adequate information, but that there should be a perfectly frank disclosure of the particular items of profit and loss year by year. What is going to happen? The late Minister of Agriculture has said, if I am rightly informed—I am sorry I did nor hear his speech—that he thought it possible that the subsidy was not sufficient. If the right hon. Gentleman already thinks that, what are we going to be faced with in three or four years' time? Nothing is more certain than that if we once adopt a policy of this sort the appetite will grow with eating, and we shall find, those of us who are here in two or three years' time, beyond question these enterprises, having had the advantage of the shelter of a subsidy, coming forward with a piteous talc that they are not able to do what they hoped to do unless the subsidy is prolonged or increased.
How are the representatives of the taxpayers going to check that? There is only one way to check it. It is not to be done by a Minister, however capable. It has to be done by the House of Commons itself, and the only way to check it is to say, "Let us have these things openly upon the table, and let us have an opportunity of examining how those people have spent your money, and why they have not succeeded." It may be that even this will not in fact plant in this country a beet sugar industry. We shall then be faced with the question, "Are we going to go further in the effort to do it, or are we going to refuse to put a further burden on the taxpayer?" It may be, on the other hand, that the
present proposals will really start the industry, but it is certain that an industry once started under a system like this will not 'be very willing to give up the special protection it has. We had it all the other day in the well-known instance of the motor cars of Messrs. Morris. These gentlemen were quite honestly satisfied that if you were once to take away the special assistance which Parliament had given them their industry would fall to pieces, and we are quite certain to have a similar contention put forward again. Apart altogether from questions of abstract theory, I beg to call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that we are here committing ourselves to a very heavy expenditure indeed without, as it seems to me, those securities and safeguards which the country and the taxpayers have a right to expect. The old Development Commission, at any rate, did endeavour to impose those safeguards, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman who is conducting this Bill through the House can fairly say that as the result of the framing and the discussion of the Bill in the last two months, he has really got a Measure which is conditioned, as it ought to be, in a way that protects the public interest.
The last observation I have to make is this. It is curious how in the whirligig of time we gradually find ourselves working round to a point of view which appears to be the very opposite from the point of view which at one time was so stoutly maintained on behalf of the country. It is about 20 years ago that the Brussels Convention was signed. What was the object of it? It was signed as the result, amongst other things, of the most diligent and skilful action of the late Joseph Chamberlain. The Brussels Convention was signed, and then there was the most active agitation for the abolition of the bounties on Continental beet sugar granted by foreign Governments because it was said, as long as the system of bounties prevails, there are interests in this country which cannot in the circumstances get a fair chance. I regret that we should so easily slip into the system of bounties. If it is to be justified at all, it can only be justified if the conditions are most thoroughly and carefully laid down. The amount that is to be raised and spent here is very large
indeed. It is quite impossible to dispute that this is really Protectionist in effect, and while we all want to see practical steps taken in order to mend practical grievances and promote great public objects, there are, as it seems to me, dangers involved in this scheme which abundantly justify the protests which are being raised against it.

Mr. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's speech has left me in some doubt whether or not he means to vote against the Bill. I rather conclude that he does, because in his final observations, if I heard him correctly, he invited the House to agree with his view that the policy contained in the Bill was only justifiable if it was accompanied by the most rigid and adequate safeguards. In the earlier part of his speech he developed with great force the view that those adequate safeguards were not so included. Therefore I presume that his conclusion on the whole matter is that the course which we invite the House to take, of giving the Bill a Third Reading, is not justifiable. If that be so, I think it is both a difficult and, from his own point of view, a regrettable conclusion at which to have arrived. It not only puts him in rather startling antagonism and intellectual opposition with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but it also denies him and his party the opportunity of taking their share in what has been the first solid constructive effort which has been made, initiated by the party opposite, on behalf of the agricultural industry. It will not escape his recollection, or that of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was, I think, Prime Minister when the Excise was first remitted in favour of home-produced sugar. As he truly said, it may be maintained and, indeed, it may be generally assumed, that action of that sort did savour of Protection. I have no cause to quarrel with him in the definition that he gave of Protection. He, at all events, should realise that a policy which was thought to be suitable by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in these circumstances, cannot be so very harmful from the Free Trade or the Protectionist political point of view when it is recom mended in slightly different form a few years later.
With regard to the general attitude of hon. Members below the Gangway towards these agricultural proposals, I am bound to say that they seem to me to be very willing to wound but somewhat afraid to strike. The hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) said that he could not believe that these proposals have any agricultural merit at all, and that no permanent good would be done to agriculture until a new system of land tenure had been adopted. That remark seemed to carry my mind back to the rural programme of the exiguous party below the Gangway at the last Election, when they appealed for the suffrages of the rural voter on the ground that they stood for a land system that was going to combine the advantages of ownership and tenancy, with the disadvantages of neither. That policy, however attractive, was not such that any country dweller could readily understand and, therefore, I was not surprised that it failed to get the active support that hon. Members anticipated and hoped. I am left in some doubt as to which side hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will record their votes this evening. Apart from that, the Bill has during the Debate had ascribed to it some very astonishing and very pleasant qualities. It was assuring to me to learn from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that it was a Bill that apparently could be described as acceptable to the Socialist party by hon. Members opposite, and that it could be welcomed as a Bill for the encouragement of private enterprise by hon. Members on this side, and that therefore, it could, in that way, bring consolation to men of all parties and of all opinions.
I am not in the least concerned to deny that in doing that it does, as the right hon. Member for Spen Valley said, and it, may indeed impose a very large and heavy liability upon the State. The references which have been made to the extent of that liability call for one qualification. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley spoke about £500,000. He said that it was quite possible and, indeed, probable, he should think certain, that that liability would be largely increased in the forthcoming years, but neither he nor any other Member of this House ought to forget that what we pay in subsidy we recover as to about half by Excise.
Therefore, if the House wishes to form an estimate of what is really the outgoing, it must bring into the credit side of the account what will be received by Excise, as well as putting on the debit side what will be the outgoings in the way of subsidy. A good deal of the criticism, as far as there has been criticism in this Debate, has been directed to the absence of safeguards for this great public experiment. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), who made, if he will allow me to say so, a speech, although I disagreed with it, that carried the whole House with it, in its intellectual consistency and sincerity, astonished me by saying that the Bill emerged with an entire lack of safeguards. I think he will recognise that that was somewhat of an exaggeration.

Mr, RILEY: I said a lack of safeguards as regards rent and the increased value of the land.

Mr. WOOD: The last thing I wish to do is to strain the words of the hon. Member. I thought that that must be an explanation of his phrase. There has been introduced into the Bill two very definite safeguards. In the first place, we have gone a long way to meet the demand of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with regard to securing control by the Minister and this House on the question of accounts. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley moved an Amendment, which we accepted last night, which strengthened the safeguard, and he and the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) were of opinion that it might have been further strengthened. We argued that on the Report stage last night, and I do not think it will be profitable to restate the argument. It will, perhaps, suffice to say that under what we have clone this House and Parliament will be able year by year and factory by factory to know what I conceive it would be desirable to know, namely, whether these factories are making a profit or a loss, and if so how much. That is the real vital substance of what we ought to know, rather than knowing the precise expenditure in the factory on this or that item which it might be improper to have made public.
In the second place, we have introduced a safeguard in the matter of wages. The hon. Member for Rochdale said,
quite truly, last night, that I had said in reply to a question that as the Bill stood the Fair Wages Clause when it was introduced, even with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), which I accepted, still remains in a more or less ineffective stage, being devoid of an effective penalty. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that I hope I have been successful in finding words that will have the effect of attaching a penalty to make effective and make recoverable an award of the Industrial Court when given. I think that will go a long way to meet the perfectly forcible objection of the hon. Member opposite as to the stage in which we left the Bill last night.
There is a third direction in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury said that this Bill lacks safeguards, and the point is of sufficient importance to merit a reply. He made the case that here we are giving a great deal of public money away in order to stimulate the sugar industry and the growing of beet, and he asked what guarantee have we that we are not in doing that increasing the value of the land and thereby putting money into the pockets of landowners? I considered that argument when he developed it, with great care, and my answer to it is this. It is perfectly true, it is undeniable—I should not wish to deny it—that as a result of this policy, land may be. and probably will be, better to let. It is, therefore quite likely that the result of this policy in certain cases may be to maintain rents, or even to permit rents to be raised. I think that is quite possible and even probable, but I am bound to say that that does not shock me as much as it shocks hon. Members opposite.

Mr. G. BARKER: Of course, it does not.

Mr. WOOD: It does not shock me as much as it shocks hon. Members opposite. They approach any question in which landowners are concerned very much in the way in which, they will remember, Lord Macaulay said the puritan approached the question of bear-baiting. He said they wished to stop it, not because of any suffering which it gave to the bear, but because of the pleasure it gave to the public. Hon. Members opposite are really so much imbued with
the danger of the possibility of one penny finding its way into the pocket of the landlord that it really warps, distorts and vitiates their outlook. I would suggest this to them, if they can divest their minds of this rather irrational point of view, that it is true that the landowner at the present time is performing, whether they believe it or not, a very valuable function in the agricultural world. He is supplying the agricultural industry with very cheap money, much cheaper money than the Treasury are able to supply. I make bold to say that the agricultural landowner to-day who is drawing rents from an agricultural estate is seldom receiving more than the equivalent of, say, 3 per cent., not on the value of the land, but on the value of the capital sunk in equipping the land—putting in drains, water supply, and so on. Therefore, what hon. Members call rent, or what shocks hon. Members as rent, is hardly ever, if ever, in the strict sense of the word, rent at all. It is a very modest rate of interest upon capital sunk in the industrial equipment of the soil, without which the land is, of course, perfectly valueless, although it is in the state of the virgin soil which the Almighty gave to man.

Mr. G. SPENCER: Are we to understand that, assuming that we agree to the right of the landlord to an economic rent—if new industries start and they are subsidised by the British Government—that the landlord has the right to take some of that money for rent. If so, that is subsidising the landlord.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WOOD: My mind has the misfortune, or the good fortune, I am afraid, of being much more sternly practical and much less affected by abstract considerations than are the minds of hon. Members opposite. I am afraid that I see it in a much more simple form. If the landowner and the tenant, who are partners in a common business, working together in a common business, are able to say that the State for its own national reasons has decided to try to make that common business more prosperous, or less unprosperous, I must confess frankly that I am not shocked by them agreeing together as to one having a little share of the profit and another having a little share of the profit in order to enable both more efficiently to discharge their economic
duties. I assure hon. Members opposite that they will not cut any ice in their constituencies on that point.
I think that that answers most of the points which have been put by way of criticism of the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that I have avoided any of their strong points. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) made an appeal to me that was, I thought, very sound and very forcible. He emphasised the necessity of using these 10 years for the stimulation of genetic research. I am sure that in that he is absolutely right. Those 10 years must not be regarded either by the factory or the farmer or anybody else as a period during which they can go to sleep and let the State money come in and just carry on. These 10 years should be used to make the industry efficient from the bottom to the top, and by that I mean principally what the hon. Member had in mind when he emphasised the importance of encouraging farmers to avail themselves of all the scientific devices they could in order to pursue better cultivation and arm themselves with the ideal form of seeds. I can assure him on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture that no efforts will be spared on our part to put ourselves, either directly or through the Development Commission, in the way of giving all assistance we can for developing that side of the business.
I think that my noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) on the whole would agree, if he heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bye (Colonel Courthope) that the claims of the farmers have been fairly met. It is the nature of every farmer, as of most of us, to want all he can get and sometimes a little bit more. I think that on the whole we can judge by results, and I am advised that contracts for beet have been placed fairly satisfactorily, and, speaking generally, the factories can look forward to a fair supply of the raw material. I apologise for saying so much, but that is all I need say, except to conclude by pointing out that it has been an easy task for a Minister to pilot this Bill through its stages, because it appealed to me as the deserted child of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—deserted through no fault of his, but, none the
less, deprived of its natural parents, and it has been a great pleasure to me this afternoon to see the affection with which parent and child have been reunited, and to be a party to listening to the benedictions that the parent has pronounced upon what I hope is a promising child.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think that those who are going to be interested in the financial contribution which is to be made under this Bill must count themselves fortunate in having two such advocates as the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Agriculture and the. present Minister. They have conducted their advocacy of the Bill in a very persuasive way, against which none of us who have views against the Bill can make any complaint. But some of us who do not agree with the principle of the Bill, are rather surprised that Liberal Members below the Gangway should have delayed their entry into the Debate so late on the Report stage last night and to-day—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We took part in the Second Reading Debate and in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, when it was first brought in and on the Report stage.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the OFFICIAL REPORT, ho will not find that there was any real criticisms of the Bill until we had the speech by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) this evening, and I think that the Minister was justified in the remark which be made in that connection. The only possible exception was the principle raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). In other respects no real point was made throughout the whole business from the Liberal Benches. Although it may appear that some of us are not in quite such harmony with our colleagues on this Bill, as in the majority of Measures which come before the House, they themselves would be the first to acknowledge that those of us who took steps to raise objection on the Money Resolution, and on the Second Reading, have been the means of reviving Amendments to the Bill which have saved the principle of fair wages for the labourers, and although we may not see eye to eye with them as to other parts of the Bill, they will give us credit in that respect. It would have been kind for the Minister to tell us what is the actual form of words.

Mr. WOOD: I have not got them.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope that, in pursuance of the promise which he made to me last night, we may have the chance of seeing those words before they are submitted for addition to the Bill in another place, because we regard it as most important, in dealing with the Fair Wages Clause, that, whatever form of words are accepted, we should secure finality in the words adopted in regard to the wages of the workers under this particular Measure. In entering my final caveat against this Bill may I say, first, that any State subsidy like this always leads to what we see happening to-day. It leads to the setting up of vested interests. We are having produced before our eyes, as the result of this policy of subsidy, what turns out to be a very large trust in an important food commodity of the people of this country. It is rather extraordinary—and I am going to repeat in spite of what the Minister said upstairs—that until my right hon. Friend met the interests concerned last year and laid down the foundations of this Bill some of the financiers and industrialists of the country let sugar severely alone, but as soon as there was a possibility of a stabilised subsidy out of public funds, then we find Lord Weir and the right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir J. Baird) and other interested persons coming in to take, what was described in a perfectly plain way by my hon. Friend upstairs as their share of the plunder. I do not think that it can be described in any other way than that.
Here we have the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet Corporation with Lord Weir and the right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs as members of the board of directors, and factories are being built, ostensibly by separate companies, but the majority of the shares are held by the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet Corporation, and the majority of the directors will be under the control of the board of directors of the Anglo-Scottish 'Sugar Beet Corporation. I hold the view that whenever you begin to use subsidies of this character, in regard to an industry, you will get people coming in like that to take their share of the swag. That will have, in my judgment, a very important effect on the representations which many of us will desire to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to his next Budget, and also
perhaps succeeding Budgets, with regard to direct taxes on the food of the people. It may even affect Budgets brought in by a Labour administration.
By whomever they are introduced, this is the point. The Minister, in reply to criticisms, said: "You say that we are going to spend over £500,000 a year on this subsidy. That is not the case because we are going to get £260,000 back in the Excise Duties." What will be the position in regard to that as soon as the factories which, he has reminded the House during the Debates on the Bill, are to be erected, are functioning? We know that the amount that will be due to the State, the amount from the Exchequer will be something like £2,000,000, if the factories that are outlined in the speech are actually built and are producing. What does that mean? When we come to ask for a reduction in direct taxation on sugar that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have created a vested interest, if he desires to remove the tax he will have to face the loss of the duty that is provided out of the subsidy under this Bill for the revenue of the country. So under this Bill we are creating a vested interest against making the food of the people free from direct impost by the State.
Coming to the principle of the Bill, it is an amazing thing that we should say to agriculturists, who are in need of help: "We cannot help you directly, but we may help you by giving a bounty or subsidy to some other industry." Where is that going to lead' I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be approached within the next few weeks to take some action with regard to the position of the growers of hops. You have had a form of hop control. They have given, in fact, some protection to the growers of hops in this country. What would the House say to the right hon. Gentleman if, in order to help the growers of hops in this country, he came down here and said: "I am very sorry that we canot give you any help direct, but we propose to subsidise the brewers so that you may get a better price for your hops"? We know that any such policy would be ruled out by the House. Yet that is the very essence of the policy which is laid down in this Bill. It seems to me to be utterly unsound and uneconomic.
When we are voting public money for a subsidy of this kind we ought to have some reference as to whether there is any veal hope of making an industry pay, even with the subsidy which is voted. I do not think that anyone can say, on the figures available for this industry, that there is any real ground for saying that they will be able to make it pay. This Bill gives a diminishing subsidy on the face of it, over 10 years, and that subsidy is to be wiped out altogether. I suggest that you would never be able to wipe it out, because the industry will never pay without the full subsidy.
In 1923, in moving the repeal of the Sugar Duty, I was informed by the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he could not take the duty off sugar because the world supply of sugar was such that, an increased demand growing up, the taking off of the tax would mean that the price of the raw article would go up. Since then, in 1923–24, the world's production of sugar increased by one and a half million tons, and in 1924–25 it increased by another three million tons. The estimates of those who are acquainted with sugar production go to show that within the next two years there will be a still further increase of another two million or three million tons of sugar in the world output. I put the point that this greater subsidy was put into the Bill based upon the price of sugar last summer, when it was about 34s. and 35s., and, judging from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, it was doubtful whether the greater subsidy offered was sufficient on that price. Yet there is every indication from the figures of the world's supply of sugar and the increase in the last three years that the price of sugar on the wholesale market will come down instead of going up. How, then, can we hope that the subsidy, reduced at the end of four years and wiped out at the end of 10 years, will leave the industry in such a position that it can become a permament economic proposition? I believe that, as a matter of fact, unless the interests come back at the end of four years and at the end of seven and at the end of 10 years, and say, "We cannot carry on unless you give us the full subsidy," and this House then gives them the full subsidy, all this money will be wasted and of non-effect.
When the world's supply of sugar was only 18,000,000 tons—now it is over 22,000,000 tons—with a subsidy of 25s. 8d. a cwt., there was a loss on the factories existing in this country. Therefore, it seems to me to be uneconomic from that point of view.
There is one other point I want to mention. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), who was rightly complimented upon his speech, referred to the question of increasing the value of land to landlords. I wonder whether the House has realised the extent to which that is possible. In the Debate on the Money Resolution I referred to the fact that there was a Committee, presided over by Sir William McLintock, appointed by the Treasury in 1922 to inquire into the position of the sugar industry. That Committee reported that their view was that permission should not be given to the company to raise further money to rank before the existing second mortgage, and that, having regard to the subsidy, which was then 25s. 8d. per cwt., its remission would amount to a subsidy on beet growing at the rate of £24 an acre. At the present rate of 19s. 6d. as subsidy, to which has to be added a preference of 1s. 11d. which the growers of beet will still receive, that means that on the showing of the Treasury Committee we are giving to the growers of beet for sugar production in this country a subsidy at the rate of over £20 an acre. In 1923, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward two propositions: first, a general tariff, and, secondly, a guaranteed wage of 30s. to farm labourers, with £l an acre subsidy to arable land. In this particular Bill we are proposing a subsidy to the growers of beet of something like £24 an acre.
For all these reasons I have felt bound to disagree with this Bill. I have to acknowledge that the Minister of Agriculture, with great courtesy, has made us concessions on the Bill, and it is a great satisfaction to myself that in particular he gave us a Clause which will mean that there will be presented to the House some statements of accounts, some statement of profit and loss, and there will be some security for the wages of the workers in the industry. I hope the House will note that on the Third Reading of the Bill it is setting up a pre-
cedent for a subsidy which is of a very dangerous kind, and that we may yet find other sections of the agricultural industry, and other industries as well, coming down with the same request, with the same precedent for their request.

Mr. THURTLE: I propose to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I have opposed this Bill since its inception. I am not opposing it on any question of Free Trade or Protection. I believe that it is an infringement of the principles of Free Trade, but it is not on that ground that I propose to oppose it. I oppose it because I think it is an infringement of sound national finance. I lay it down as a general proposition that no public money ought ever to be voted to private interests unless there are paramount over-riding considerations which make that necessary. I have listened very carefully to the discussions on this Measure, and in my opinion it has not been established that in connection with the sugar beet industry there are those paramount and over-riding considerations present. That being the case, those of us who really want to see public finance kept clear of corruption and of pernicious influence ought to vote against this Bill. The Labour party gave the Government an opportunity of declaring its intentions on this matter. It put forward certain proposals in Committee. We laid it down as a principle that if the Government paid money into a private enterprise of this sort it was entitled to participate in any profits which might accrue. We asked that the nation might be awarded certain shares of the value which will be produced by the national subsidy. That was refused to us in Committee. We also asked that the nation might have upon the Boards of Directors of these concerns which are carrying on the sugar industry certain representatives, in order to look after and protect the public money which had been granted to these businesses. That also was refused to us.
It shows clearly that what is behind the people who are promoting this Measure is a desire to take this vast sum of public money and to put it into the pockets of certain private interests. We have had Members opposite standing up in the most naked and unashamed fashion and saying that they wanted to participate in the
result of this Measure. We have had landowners who are directly affected by the Measure standing up and saying how much they welcome it. We have had company directors who are directly affected by the Measure and knowing they are going to profit by it, standing up and welcoming the Measure. That kind of thing is a very unpleasant feature in connection with legislation. We ought not to have people who are going to benefit financially and definitely by a public Measure getting up in this House and using all their influence to promote that Measure. I am a moderate man, and I have a temperate habit in my language, but when I look back over the history of this subsidy project, when I remember its genesis and the way in which it has been worked for, lobbied for, and the influences that have been brought to bear, I cannot help saying, moderate and temperate in my language though I may be, that this is a most unpleasant piece of political jobbery; and in the interests of financial purity, as in the interests of the great mass of the taxpayers of the country. I shall record my vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), in the opening remarks of his speech, made a claim to having opposed and criticised this Bill on behalf of bis party without any assistance from the Liberal benches. Indeed, he said that, until last night, nothing whatever had been done from these Benches in criticism of the measure. I hold in my hand the OFFICIAL REPORT of Wednesday. 18th February. In Column 1165 there is the beginning of a speech which I delivered. That speech extended over six columns. In it I offered to the Government suggestions which were taken up by the Labour Party in the Standing Committee, although they found no place in the original draft of the Bill as the Labour Government themselves brought it in. Now they claim credit for the very proposals that I made at that time.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that no draft Bill was submitted by the Labour Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) regards himself as the father of this
Measure. Indeed, it was so referred to again and again OIL Second Reading. For the information of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough let me point out one Amendment of which he is undoubtedly, and has every reason to be, proud, because it has been inserted in the Bill in Committee. The Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon that the position of the wage-earners was safeguarded, a Fair Wages Clause having been inserted in the Bill. From where did the suggestion come? Did it come from the Labour Front Bench? Not at all. It was first made in this Debate in the first discussion on this Measure, on 18th February, and it was as made by myself. I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friends as to the credit for these proposals, but it is a little strong of the hon. Member for Hillsborough to come down here and say that nobody but his own party had taken part in the discussion of the Bill, when the only valuable suggestion which has been adopted came from the Liberal benches. Let me refer to the case that was put forward on the Second Reading, for it ought to be emphasised again to-day. I opposed the Bill on Second Reading almost entirely on financial grounds, but I also did so on other grounds, and those grounds were that, by this system of assisting industry, we laid the House of Commons open to the kind of pressure of which we had already seen an example, and which will increase as subsidies increase, this House being used for the procuring of public money for private concerns.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has not put forward this Measure as a means of enriching private proprietors. I know that quite well. But the effect of it he could not avoid. He himself quite frankly said to the House that if this subsidy has a good effect upon the beet growing industry it must bring benefits to the landlords and to the farmers. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk was reminded on the Second Reading that it was very natural that he, a Norfolk man, should bo glad to see assistance given to Norfolk industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) very naturally pleaded the cause of the refiners, and so we have in the case of these two hon. Gentlemen,
as well as in other quarters, examples of the very thing which is to be deprecated, and which is the natural result of taking public money for private ends. Members come down to this House, one to plead for a subsidy because it will be popular in his county, and another to plead against it because it will be damaging in his constituency, and it is very natural that they should do so. But can we imagine a more degrading way of lowering the standard of the House of Commons than that Members should have to get up on opposite sides and plead for and against proposals merely on the ground that one course or the other was going to put money into the pockets of certain of their constituents. It was on those grounds, as well as others, that I opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.
There is a further objection to it. The Exchequer as it stands at present cannot afford this money. We shall be faced very soon with a new Budget, and the reductions in the Estimates so far are not sufficient to bring about any very drastic reduction in taxation. The Chancellor of Exchequer will plead that he has to make ends meet. He will find on every hand the spending Departments doing their best to keep their Estimates up while he is doing his best to keep them down. One of the claimants that will come against the Chancellor of Exchequer will bo the Ministry of Agriculture, and the only reply that will be made by the Minister of Agriculture when he is asked to bring the subsidy down will be that it cannot be done, that the companies cannot carry on without the subsidy. Indeed, I am not sure that there will not be other influences at work as well. It will be said the county constituencies will not stand it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the chief Government Whip will obviously have to say that the withdrawal of this subsidy would mean grave unpopularity in the county areas, and he will be afraid of endangering some of his county seats. So we shall find political pressure being used in order to push up the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture for the provision of subsidies which are to go to private companies, while the State is not retaining any concern in the profits made by these companies except what is got out of the Income Tax. Obviously Members in various parts of the House will have to bring to bear on their public
actions here the pressure of private interests outside. If these are not sufficient reasons for voting against this Bill I do not know what such reasons can be. I should very much like to know what line the hon. Member for Hillsborough is going to take on the Bill. He condemned it utterly. Is he prepared to endorse that opinion in the division lobby?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: signified assent.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad to know that he is going to do so. I presume his neighbour, the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury and one of the authors of the Bill, is going to vote for it, and the spectacle of the Labour Front Bench divided on this Measure is one which will naturally cause a great deal of interest in other parts of the House. [Interruption.] I agree that it may not be without precedent. The only comment I make at the present time is that those of us who believe this proposal to be unsound, whether on account of its extravagance, or because it starts a system of subsidy out of public money for private concerns, or because it has absent from it the necessary safeguards which were laid down by the Development Commission when they granted money for this purpose, are prepared to do our duty and vote in the Lobby against the Bill. Let me make one reference to the Development Commission to show how different that Commission's scheme was from the present scheme. The Development Commission advanced money for the purpose of beet experiments in Norfolk, but they did so on the strict understanding that they were to receive 5 per cent. on the money advanced to the company. There is nothing of the kind in this Bill. There are no definite safeguards in it from beginning to end, except the publication of the balance sheets. I know the Minister of Agriculture has able men in his Department who will scrutinise the balance sheets with great care, but we must remind him again, as we did yesterday, that this money is not solely in his keeping. We are all, as Members of this House, specially charged with the financial affairs of this country and it is to this House these companies should be answerable for the expenditure of the money which is provided by this House.

Major DAVIES: It is not for me to intervene in the domestic squabbles and differences which have developed above and below the Gangway opposite, or in the claims and counter-claims which are being made in respect of damages which may have been inflicted on this Bill in Committee, or which are to be inflicted on it in the Lobby. My part in the Debates which have taken place on this question has been severely limited by my misfortune in being unlucky in connection with your attention, Mr. Speaker, on each of the occasions on which I have risen. My excuse for taking part in these discussions in their closing stage is that I am, perhaps, unique in this House in having been closely connected for a period of 25 years with the growing of sugar, the manufacture of sugar, the refining of sugar, and the production of machinery for this purpose, and yet at the same time I have no axe to grind, as suggested by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I do not stand up to recommend this Bill because I am likely to get anything out of it myself, except in a very humble way as an experimental farmer who intends, in his own Division of Somerset, where it is proposed to erect one of these factories, to see if it be possible to grow sugar beet at a profit. I wish to join my voice to the others which have welcomed this Bill, and to congratulate the Minister on the skill with which he has piloted it through its various stages, and on the support and assistance which he has received from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.
There are two features which I should like to emphasise, and to which I think sufficient attention has not been directed. The first is that this industry is not primarily and merely an agricultural venture. It is a very highly scientific manufacturing industry and, for that reason, it is peculiarly suitable for assistance from the State. The average agricultural crop is to a great extent a finished product when it is grown. With regard to sugar, whether cane or beet, it is raw material, in a very raw state, and it has to go through a very highly developed process before it is a marketable commodity and enters into the food of the people. Therefore, it affords the State an opportunity of assisting the industry as a whole from the growing of the crop by
the farmer to the manufacture of the finished product. Therein lies one among many of the advantages which I see as likely to accrue to the country from the establishment of this industry. The erection of these factories in itself will give much needed assistance to the stagnant iron and steel industries.
Another feature which has not been touched upon is the chemical and scientific control which is necessary in a modern factory. We said in the past, especially during the years of the War, how we paid the price for the enormous strides which Germany was able to make in practical and applied chemistry. In this industry we shall have opportunities and openings for the young men who are passing through the chemical courses in our universities enabling them to apply the scientific knowledge which they are receiving. The advantage is not confined to the industry itself; we have thus a potential reservoir of trained scientific minds, with a knowledge of applied chemistry, of which we can make use to recover that position in the chemical world which we lost in times past and which was held by Germany to our detriment.
My last point is this. I have not searched the pages of "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" to learn the exact age of each Member of the House—not merely because I have not the time to do so, but because I realise that Membership of the House is not confined to the male sex—but I venture to state there is not one Member here during whose lifetime there has occurred an opportunity, not of developing an existing industry, but of starting an entirely new industry in this country. One of the great differences between the lives of the pioneering inhabitants of the newer parts of the world, such as our Dominions and the United States, and the older settled countries like our own is that there are no opportunities open to people at home to take up entirely new lines of activity, commercial or otherwise. In the outlying parts of the Empire, men are surrounded by opportunities for utilising their energy and applying their abilities to the development of some industry which up to that time has not existed in that particular country. We are accustomed to run along the grooves laid down and indicated by our forefathers, because there has
not been an opportunity, owing to the congested population of this little island, to develop new industries.
Here we have a proposal which we hope is going to set on its feet, what is to all intents and purposes, an entirely new industry. As one who has seen a sugar industry fostered by the State and developed in its early days by State assistance, I must class myself among the optimists with regard to the potentialities of this new industry here. I believe we shall find its advantages far-reaching, and if, at the end of 10 years, when this subsidy is gradually approaching vanishing point, we see that the alternative to cutting it out is to lose the benefit of the establishment of this industry, I am confident, from my experience in other parts of the world, that we shall have found it of such far-reaching and material advantage to the people as a whole that we shall think not once but twice before we withdraw entirely the State support—supposing that the inevitable result of such action is to be the disappearance of the industry. For these reasons, I welcome the Bill, and I hope when it comes to the Division we shall have an overwhelming majority in favour of placing it on the Statute Book, with what, I anticipate, will be most satisfactory results to agriculture and to the manufacturing industries of this country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I intend to vote for the Bill, and I wish to remind hon. Members on this side who are opposing the Bill of its real authorship. The authorship of the Bill does not belong to the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to carry the minds of hon. Members back to a speech made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on certain questions relating to unemployment. On that occasion, the Labour Government were being criticised regarding proposals to deal with unemployment, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite rightly—made a statement to the following effect. He said he was a convinced Free Trader and that much against his will he had been forced to the conclusion that one of the best schemes to stimulate employment was the setting up of the sugar-beet industry. That was the real origin of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's grounds for that statement were very serious. It is not sufficient for hon. Members in any part of the House to say merely that this is a
bad Bill. The Bill may be bad in parts, but the question we have to consider is; Is it by any chance likely to employ a certain number of men more than are employed at present? If it be proved that it is going to give a certain amount of employment, then we should not oppose it unless we have some alternative to offer.
I want to say to the right hon. Member who, I think, leads the Radical party, one of the wings of the already small Liberal party, and who stated, in a very fine passage, his condemnation of subsidies, and even twitted our Front Bench on its divided character, that that applies to his party also, for last year I watched the then right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), a Leader of the Liberal party, and the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), also a leader, and in every Division we had on this matter those two were in different Lobbies. Even this Session, for all that our party is three times the size, we have a far more united division record than the party below the Gangway. The difference is that our party and even his party are not quite the patient oxen that the Front Bench on the other side are.
My own view is that here is a Bill that is calculated to give employment. Hon. Members on all sides have different theories in regard to agriculture, and my view is the Socialist view. Hon. Members opposite have some sense, and some cure, but hon. Members below the Gangway come along and say that the Socialist view is wrong and that the Tory view is wrong, but I have yet to learn what is their alternative theory for the creation of employment. After all, all parties are agreed, no matter what their view of national life may be, that agriculture today is going from bad to worse. Something has to be done. Hon. Members opposite, in addition to the sugar subsidy, would impose Protection, but they have wisely, I think, from their point of view, gone away from that idea, and they come along and say that some form of subsidy has to be introduced. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has to remember that he allowed Bills in which exactly the same principle was involved to be passed without protest, and even Bills for which his
party have been responsible. The Trade Facilities Act is the subsidising of industry, and who invented that but certain friends of his? The Trade Facilities Act raises the same issue, but the right hon. Gentleman, because he is interested in ship-owning, denounced shipbuilding grants under that scheme, speaking on behalf of certain interests with which he was associated, on public grounds.
The Trade Facilities Act guarantees certain credits to private enterprise, and refuses them to certain other forms of private enterprise, and I cannot see the logic of introducing such a Measure and then refusing to apply it when it is a question of helping agriculture. My own view is that the agricultural worker is a tied slave at the present time. He cannot seek any other alternative form of work. He is tied to the land, and usually he is tied to a particular industry, and if this House can, even by means of a subsidy, devise an alternative form of employment for the agricultural worker, which will employ him in the winter time, I am sure it is the duty of every Member to support such a proposal. I am against subsidies as a general principle, but in so far as we are now concerned with a million men out of work, and with unemployment rampant from one end of the country to the other, you and I, no matter what our views may be, have to face the situation.
I regret one feature of the Bill, and that is that our Amendment allowing the Government to have a say or a representative on the board of directors of a company which is subsidised was not agreed to, and that the Government are not having any capital assets in the running of this industry. I regret that the Bill was not improved by the acceptance of our Amendments. On the other hand, I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture insisted that the contracts for machinery should be given, to the extent of 75 per cent., to British manufacturers. I listened to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who made a well-informed speech, and I read the criticism of the late Minister of Agriculture, with regard to the 75 per cent. condition. That is nothing new in public life. The co-operative societies, for instance, always give preference to other co-operative societies in the making of goods, because they say that money
raised by co-operative societies ought to be giving a preference to other co-operative societies. Here are we, allied with the co-operative movement, and this money is to subsidise the beet sugar industry. It is raised by British people and, therefore, the preference ought to be given to the people who have to raise the bulk of taxation.
We have an industry in Glasgow employing tens of thousands of workers. Have we to see them helping to raise this money, and the work being given to some other country? Who has not been on a town council, and hundreds of times, without thinking it a violation either of Free Trade or of Tariff Reform, said: "Give the job to a local man, rather than to others"? It is a common occurrence, and I am glad that we have included that provision in this Bill. I remember criticising the previous Tory Government, because they raised money under the trade facilities scheme, and then placed contracts in Belfast instead of giving them here. I cannot see any valid reason for voting against the Bill, which is to help the agricultural industry, and I think that anything that is calculated to improve the conditions of the workers on the land ought to have the heartiest co-operation and assistance of those who represent industrial seats, but who have, nevertheless, a kindred feeling and a desire to see those poor people getting some decent chance to improve their conditions.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: As a representative of an industrial area, and as one equally concerned with the question of unemployment, I cannot see why we should tax the unemployed, where the rate of unemployment is 40 per cent. and more, for the benefit of those where unemployment is very much less. It seems to me that you are putting a burden on the industrial worker, who is already suffering tremendously from unemployment, in order to help the rural worker. whose lot, bad as it may be, is not really as bad as that of the industrial worker. That is the protest that I want to make. If once we begin this policy of subsidies, where shall we stop? If we are to subsidise agriculture because of unemployment, what about shipbuilding, with 41 per cent. unemployed on the North East Coast? What about engineering, with 30 per cent. unemployed? What
about the iron and steel trade, with 23 per cent. unemployed? If once we begin on the slippery slope of subsidies, surely there is no end, and I submit that if we subsidise every industry where there is unemployment, the last state of the country as a whole will be worse than the present.
Subsidy is no answer and no remedy. You are only going to make this House the cockpit of various vested interests, all pleading with their Members to get them subsidies and special treatment. We want rather to regard the community as a whole, and to look at those things which will be for the benefit of the commonweal rather than for the benefit of any particular interest. Therefore, as the representative of an industrial area, where unemployment is now, in certain districts, 40 per cent., I protest against those workers being taxed in order to subsidise an industry in which employment is much less.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I shall find no difficulty whatever in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill. I am rather tired of those generalities which go upon these lines, and say, "If you once start subsidising, where are you going to end "? I am interested in the specific case that is before us now, and what we have to do is to consider whether the condition of certain industries, or the absence of certain industries, does not justify a positive policy on the part of the State, rather than a negative policy, because half a century ago a certain very respected politician and economist laid down certain doctrines. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are coming on beautifully!"] Not at all. I disagree. That is the profound mistake that hon. Members make who imagine that they understand Protection. I should find the very greatest difficulty in supporting any form of State activity, or positive State policy, if it was only one-sided. My right hon. Friend made certain remarks about the sharing of the landlord and the tenant. I confess—it may be on account of differences of starts in life or differences of experiences in one'6 earlier days—that I am far more interested in the sharing of the tenant and his workpeople than in the sharing of the tenant and his landlord, and if this Bill did not give the working men, the labourers,
some share in any prosperity or any benefit that might accrue from the positive State policy, I do not think I could have supported it.
7.0 p.m.
In that respect, I should like to ask the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) whether he was quite right in the very dogmatic statement he made regarding the way in which this Amendment found a place in the Bill now before us. I do not want to raise these small points—I understand the difficulties in which my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gangway find themselves, and that they have to scrape up a few votes here and there—but this is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has done grave injustice to colleagues of mine on the Front Bench. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), the late Minister of Agriculture, was responsible for the drafting of this Bill. He was nothing of the kind. He did not draft the Bill. He is not responsible for the details of the Bill. He is responsible for the policy, and I am perfectly certain that he is not at all sorry that that responsibility should be placed upon his shoulders. I am certainly not sorry, as a colleague of his, that he did start the policy. He tells us that nobody ever thought of this; apparently nobody ever thought of the safeguarding of wages of the labourer until he mentioned it in a speech of six columns in column 1,167 of Vol. 180 of the OFFICIAL REPORT during the Second Beading of the Bill. I do not know what Liberal mathematics are; I know what Labour mathematics are, and Labour mathematics are this. This is a good, sound Cobdenite doctrine, that column

1,131 precedes column 1,167. A speech reported in column 1,131, 1,132, 1,133, must have been delivered before a speech reported in column 1,167 and 1,168. At 1,132 my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (W. Graham) stated quite categorically that a rate of wages, settled by a Wages Court, should be obligatory or binding upon the employer, and announced that we were going to see to that later on. It is really a small point. I am almost ashamed to refer to it, but this is the second time that has happened, and I can remember how perfectly grievously injured my right hon. Friends here were in certain newspapers the next morning which attributed to me a deliberate attempt of pursuing that sort of propaganda. As soon as I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea repeat this afternoon his mistake as to what had happened regarding wages. I felt it was my duty, and I hope the House will not object to my having done so, just to put the matter perfectly straight, because the safeguarding of all wages, the safeguarding of the interests of the labourer, as well as the interests of the tenant farmer and the landlord, must be regarded by us as having been essential to the Bill, and it is only because that safeguard has gone in that we are in a position to vote for it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very sorry if I misrepresented the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I certainly had overlooked the fact that he had mentioned it, and I certainly do not wish to claim any credit at his expense, of all others.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 346, Noes, 56.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[7.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barclay-Harvey, C M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Briggs, J. Harold


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Briscoe, Richard George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Broad, F. A.


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow. Centr'l)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Bennett, A. J.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Ammon, Charles George
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Berry, Sir George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bethell, A.
Buchanan, G.


Atkinson, C.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burman, J. B.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Blundell, F. N.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boothby, R J. G.
Calne, Gordon Hall 


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell. E. T.


Cassels, J. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanbury, C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Neville, R. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hayday, Arthur
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Christie, J. A.
Hayes, John Henry
Nuttall, Ellis


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Clowes, S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Paling, W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar, & Wh'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hilton, Cecil
Perring, William George


Cope, Major William
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Couper, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pleiou, D. P.


Cove, W. G.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pilcher, G.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Homan, C. W. J.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William


Crook, C. W.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Price, Major C. W. M.


Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Raine, W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Ramsden, E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Dalton, Hugh
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Davidson,J. (Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Davidson, Major General Sir J. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jacob, A. E.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, R.- (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dixey, A. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Drewe, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Ropner, Major L.


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, T.
Salmon, Major I.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ellis. R. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elveden, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Scrymgeour, E.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sexton, James


Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Finburgh, S.
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Fleming, D. P.
Lougher, L.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Ford, P. J.
Lowth, T.
Shepperson, E. W.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Sitch, Charles H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lunn, William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Gates, Percy
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smillie, Robert


Goult Lieut.-Col Andrew Hamilton
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacIntyre, Ian
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gillett, George M.
McLean, Major A.
Smithers, Waldron


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Goff, Sir Park
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stamford, T. W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Grace, John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Greenall, T.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stephen, Campbell


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major p. B.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Gretton, Colonel John
Meller, R. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Taylor, R. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell- (Croydon,S.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)






Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Webb, Rt. hon. Sidney
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Varley, Frank B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Viant, S. P.
Wignall, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Warns, G. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wright, W.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)



Watts, Dr. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Colonel Gibbs and Captain




Douglas Hacking.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Both well)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Mackenzie Livingstone and


Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John
Mr. Fenby.


Resolutions agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FORMER ENEMY ALIENS (DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is in form a Bill to amend three Acts, and thereby remove certain disabilities and discriminations. In substance, the Bill is a Bill to approve, and to give effect to, the Commercial Treaty, the terms of which are set out in the White Paper which has been circulated to the House. Negotiations for the Treaty were begun by the late Government, and carried on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr, S. Webb), and it fell to us to take up the negotiations where he had laid them down. When I came into these negotiations I found he had already called into his assistance the Advisory Council, of the Board of Trade which is fully representative of industry and commerce, including members on the Labour side and also special advisers representing
industrial, commercial, banking, insurance, and shipping interests.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who are the shipping interests?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Chamber of Shipping and the Seamen's Union. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that there is a resolution supporting this Bill, passed by the Seafarers' Joint Council, which represents the nine great unions concerned. There has been among all those who advised us, I think, a general consensus of opinion as to the need for such a Treaty, and as to the provisions which ought to be found, if it were possible to arrange them, in such a Treaty, and a general consensus of opinion in support of the provisions which were ultimately inserted in that Treaty. I do not think that we have inserted anything in the Treaty which the right hon. Gentleman was not anxious to see there, and I am bound to say I think the Treaty, whichever Government had been in office, would have taken, I hope, exactly the same form. The need for a Treaty was very urgent, because, as the House, I think, is aware, the corresponding Articles of the Treaty of Versailles expired in January of this year. There-
fore, in considering the Bill which is now before the House, we have to consider, inevitably, the provisions which are found in this Treaty, because the whole must stand or fall together.
The greatest need of all in a Treaty of this kind is to get the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty, but it contains, it in as complete form as possible. This Treaty secures the Most-Favoured-Nation provisions to us, and it contains a special and a more detailed application of those provisions than, I think, we have ever succeeded in getting in any commercial Treaty before. If hon. Members will look at the White Paper, they will see that the main body of the Treaty is substantially the common form, brought up-to-date, of such treaties, but, in the Protocol, there is an extended and wider application of those provisions. Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol provide that the Most-Favoured-Nation treatment, whether with regard to Customs or anything else found in the Treaty, shall be applied in the most liberal manner possible, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit. There is a special provision, that if there is any question of a breach, it shall be taken up immediately by verbal negotiations, and in case of a dispute, it would ultimately go to arbitration, under Article 30 of the Treaty.
In Article 5 of the Protocol, there are special provisions inserted for British insurance companies doing business in Germany, and for British banks doing business in Germany. What is tremendously important, in Article 6 there is the fullest possible facility for conducting emigration, the absolute right to British companies to establish their agencies in Germany for dealing with emigrant and transmigrant traffic, exactly as if they were German companies, with the same full and complete rights, not only to secure that traffic, but to deal with it in every way by railways or shipping. Then, in Article 3 of the Protocol, there is a provision that, not later than six months from the coming into force of the Treaty, all forms of prohibition on both sides shall be removed except in special cases. Members on both sides of the House, I know, from time to time have had complaints that, where you have a great number of prohibitions, difficulty inevitably arises in getting licences. The only way of dealing effectively
with that is to get, as far as you can, the removal of the prohibition,' and Article 3 of the Protocol contains a provision that all prohibitions are to go, except those of which actual notice is given. By Article 7 of the Protocol, the German Government undertake to ratify and carry out a number of conventions to which the commercial community and the shipping community attach great importance—conventions, which have been entered into under the auspices of the League of Nations, for the freedom of transit, for the simplification of Customs formalities, for provision, both in shipping and railway transit, against discrimination, or its consequences, and for enforcing in the Courts arbitration clauses, where those clauses are found in commercial agreements.
The House, therefore, will see that the Treaty is not only, what we did not have with Germany before the War, a Most-Favoured Nation Treaty, but it contains, as I have shown, an amplification of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle in a detailed particularity which has never been found in a Treaty before. It must be obvious that, if you are to have a Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty with any country, you must accord the Most-Favoured-Treatment to that country. It is impossible to secure these advantages and to maintain any discrimination. Therefore, there is the provision that the discriminations which exist to-day shall be removed. The three discriminations which we seek to remove in consequence of the Treaty are the three which are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill before the House. The first is a provision relating to non-ferrous metals, that, for a period of five years, an ex-enemy alien shall not engage in the non-ferrous metal business; but, as a matter of fact, if it had not been for what I may call the artificial continuation of the War, the delay in the ratification of peace, which technically prolonged the period of war long after it was actually finished, that period would already have expired, and does, in any case, expire next year. The second discrimination is a provision with regard to banks, prohibiting ex-enemy aliens from engaging in banking for a period of five years, or such period as Parliament might determine. That period would not lapse automatically, and,
therefore, would require Parliamentary action to determine the period. I do not think I need say anything about that.
The third discrimination, to which most attention has been directed, is Section 12 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. which provides that no former enemy alien shall be employed or act as master, officer or member of the crew of a British ship registered in the United Kingdom. The history of that Section is well remembered by everyone in the House, and I think I shall be expressing the sentiments of the seamen themselves when I say—and it was so expressed to me by some of their representatives—that what they had in their minds was that this was not necessarily a permanency, but that it was intended, and desired by them, to be for a period to mark the action taken by Germany as against our mercantile marine and its members in the War. I say that because I think there are very few who would contend that, apart from considerations of our own interests, when chat Section was put in it was intended that it should last for ever. What I should like the House to understand, what I should like to make clear, is that it is only that Section of the Aliens Act which we are seeking to repeal under this Treaty, and by this Bill. All that is done is to remove the discrimination against ex-enemy aliens, and not to give any right to any alien from which he is otherwise debarred under the Aliens Act. It is enormously important to realise that, because there was a suggestion at one time that if this section were repealed aliens generally would find their way on to British ships in a way they cannot do at present. Nothing is further from the truth. What the seamen have always regarded in respect to aliens as their charter is Section 5. Section 5 is the section which provides in the first place under Sub-section (1) that
No alien shall act as master, chief officer, or chief engineer of a British merchant ship …,
and so on, with one very limited exception, that the Admiralty are able to make an exception in favour of the alien who rendered good service in the Mercantile Marine during the War. Section 5, Subsection (2)—what I have called the Charter—is this:
No alien shall be employed in any capacity on board a British ship registered
in the United Kingdom at a rate of pay less than the standard rate of pay for the time being current on British ships for his rating.
It is that Section which the seamen regard, and rightly regard, as their charter in this matter. That Section remains in its entirety, and is not touched by the Bill which is now before the House. Moreover, we reserve absolute discretion to enforce, either by legislation or by administration, any Regulation or provision which the House considers necessary in the national interest towards aliens, providing only that we do treat all aliens alike. As a matter of fact, we to-day are enforcing very stringent Regulations. It is a general rule that no alien is permitted to come to this country to take up work which a British workman can be found to do. Under the law, as under administration, as it stands to-day, alien seamen engaged abroad, are not allowed to land at a British port. Every step that the Home Office and my Department can take is being taken and will be taken to enforce that provision. Therefore, no privilege of any sort is given to aliens as such as against British seamen. I go further, and I say to the House, after going into this matter with shipowners and seamen, that so far from the provisions of this Treaty militating in any way against the employment of British seamen, they are directed in their favour. I will illustrate to the House what I mean. One of the things which the shipping community were most anxious to get into the Treaty was a provision to deal with the emigrant traffic. As I have shown to the House, under Article 6 of the Protocol we get that national treatment for all our shipping companies which is accorded by Germany to her own people.
But what has happened in practice? It has happened in practice that if a liner has to carry a large number of German emigrants speaking no language but German, it is absolutely necessary to have a certain number of people on board who are able to talk to the emigrants in their own language. The only result, as a matter of fact, I am told—and it is common knowledge amongst shipowners and seamen in the shipping world—was that while these provisions were in force
the companies went to great pains to secure somebody who could fill these posts, and who was able to speak German, and he was either a Roumanian or a Czech, but not a Briton. Where these came from I do not know! Therefore, so far from this provision militating against our seamen, it is absolutely necessary in order to enable the ships to keep at sea, and so deal with emigrant traffic—ships which would otherwise be laid up. You will then have taken on board the ships a few Germans, a few stewards, and I believe I am right in saying that already the union concerned has been in consultation with the shipowners as to the number which may be taken on board ship. The net result is, or will be, that you will have British ships kept at sea, manned by British seamen who otherwise would be out of a job, carrying on the trade which this Treaty brings to us.
One of the interesting things is that so far from there being any tendency to employ a larger number of aliens in the British mercantile fleet there are being employed fewer and fewer than before the War. I have been looking at the last detailed figures available. I find that at the last census of seamen in 1921—the masters, mates and engineers employed in the British mercantile marine numbered 27,000. I am including in this not merely the British ships sailing from British ports, but British ships working abroad, for—as hon. Members know—a number of ships on the British Register do not come into British ports. Of the number I have given 276 were foreigners. That is 1 per cent. In the four years that followed, out of an annual average of 3,600 certificates given, only 14. I think, were given to foreigners. That shows that in the officer class how little tendency there has been to encourage foreigners. When we come to the seamen themselves, and take the engagement of European seamen, you find that before the War, in 1913, there was a percentage of 7. 81 foreigners; in 1914, 8. 20 were foreigners; in 1921, 3. 05; in 1922, 2. 91; and in 1924, 2. 83. That shows that there is certainly no tendency on the part of British shipowners to engage foreigners when they can get their own men. Of course, Section 5 is the charter, and that Section stands, and it says that if the foreigner is engaged the foreigner has in every case to be paid the rate of
wage which would be offered to the British seaman.
While I have been making this point I have seen it stated that even a single alien in a British ship is a very dangerous thing for the country in a national emergency. I wonder if the House realises that inevitably in war you have more aliens on your ships than at any other time. That happens, and must happen, because when the Navy mobilises it is then that you call more upon the men of your mercantile marine, so that it actually happens that in war you have a larger number of aliens on your ships than you had in time of peace. The people I think who realise this best are the seamen themselves. In accordance with my promise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I would refer to a Resolution which was passed and sent to me officially after I had met representatives of the nine unions represented on the Seafarers' Joint Council. They passed this Resolution:
That this Seafarers' Joint Council, after hearing the report of the deputation and particularly the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the Treaty is urgently necessary to bring the overseas trade of this country back to normal, get the ships which are now laid up under weigh and considerably reduce unemployment, are of opinion no useful purpose will be served in the interests of the men of the sea by opposing the Government in their efforts to negotiate the Treaty.
I think they were profoundly right—if I may say so—in passing a Resolution of that kind. It is certainly in the interests of trade generally. Of that I feel there is no doubt: but it is, I believe, in the interests of shipping and the seamen themselves.
I would only add one or two other observations about the Treaty. It provides, in Article 31, that any Dominion or Colony may adhere to the Treaty, and it also provides that pending the formal adherence to the Treaty the Dominion or Colony extending the most-favoured nation treatment to Germany shall have that treatment extended to them in return, although the formal adherence has not been made. The House will also observe from the Minutes and the signatures appended to the Treaty that it has been signed entirely without reserve.
The Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading now provides that it
should come into force on a date certified by the Secretary of State as being the date of the exchange of ratification. The Treaty I think, and I think in the view of manufacturers, merchants and indeed of all those who have considered its terms, and who are interested in trade, is of real value. I think it is not only of value in itself, it is of great value as a precedent which may be followed in other cases in the future, in Europe and in the world. That is a consideration of value. It has been widely welcomed by the industrial and commercial community on both these grounds. On both these grounds I commend it to the House. In doing so I should be ungracious if I did not express my gratitude to those who preceded me in these negotiations for the ground they have covered and the work they have put in in the earlier stages of negotiations, and I flunk hon. Gentlemen will agree with me in saying how very much both of us throughout the negotiations are indebted to Lord D'Abernon.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: As the President of the Board of Trade has said, we on these benches, and I would include my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), have part responsibility for the negotiations which resulted in this Treaty, and I have only risen this evening in order to assure my hon. Friends behind me, if there be any doubt amongst them, that this Bill really does adequately safeguard all those standard rates of wages which already exist in the case of aliens other than ex-enemy aliens. If one is not trained to this sort of thing, there is great difficulty, I agree, in dealing with the exact effect of this legislation, but I wish to emphasise the fact, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham wishes me to do so, that in these negotiations regard has always been had to the maintenance and the guarantee of the standard rates which are laid down under existing legislation. Without going into any technicalities of law, it is common knowledge that under Section 5 of the Aliens Restriction Act, aliens are not to be employed in any capacity on board a British ship at less than the standard rate of wage, and then there is a proviso that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that aliens of any particular race are habitually employed afloat in any capacity
or in any climate for which they are specially fitted, nothing in that Section is to prejudice the right of those aliens to be employed on British ships at rates of pay which are not below those for the time being fixed as standard rates for British subjects of that race.
Under that Section as it exists at present, former enemy aliens are excluded, but they are now to be brought under the provisions of that Section and. therefore, the position with regard to their rates of pay will be exactly the ' same as that of all other aliens employed on British ships. The restrictions as to the employment of aliens as masters will be just the same in their case as in the case of other aliens. All this does, therefore, is to exclude that part of the Act which was, probably, very necessary at the time, which says that ex-enemy aliens shall not be employed on British ships.
I may just point out, in conclusion, that it is a definite, provision, set out in the first Schedule of the Protocol, that His Britannic Majesty undertakes to recommend Parliament to legislate for the removal of these disabilities, and one of them is this particular one. All this does is to place the ex-enemy alien, when employed on a British ship, in exactly the same position as every other alien employed on a British ship. All the restrictions which apply to them apply to him, all the standard rates apply to him as to them. We were mindful of this when the negotiations were proceeding, and as we see that that provision is contained in the present Bill, we hope it will be. accorded a Second Reading without much further discussion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House refuses a Second Reading to a Bill that will increase unemployment amongst British seamen, and still further weaken the available reserves of trained seamen for the Royal Navy.
I would mention at the beginning that I have seen very great changes in regard to this particular subject in the few years I have been in this House. When the Treaty of Versailles was introduced, I sat above the Gangway and opposed its passage through this House, to the best of my ability, on the grounds that it was unduly strict towards the defeated enemy. The right hon. Gentleman the President
of the Board of Trade, who then was a distinguished Member of the back benches, sat on the other side, and was one of those who supported the' Bill. To-day, in a speech on which I hope he will allow mo to felicitate him—especially as it was not a matter where party lines were very clearly drawn, and perhaps for that reason I am able particularly to felicitate him—he supported a Bill to sweep away part of the strictures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. I, still a back bencher, and he, a distinguished member of the Cabinet, are again opposed across the table.
I feel bound to resist this Bill because in a certain particular it is against the interests of a great body of constituents who support me at elections, and whom I do not propose to desert now that I am safely back in the House of Commons. Before I come to this particular point, may I say, briefly, with regard to the rest of the Bill, that I must, of course, welcome it. I do not know if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade is going to reply, but if they are I would like to know whether, when these negotiations leading up to the Bill took place, the question of commercial air traffic was discussed. I have the provisions of the Bill here, and they do not particularly mention it with regard to transit, as far as I can understand them. As the House knows, we are considerably hampered in developing our air services with Central Europe by German restrictions on our machines flying over their territory, and this very important matter should have been considered when the Bill was under discussion in Berlin. As to the rest of the Bill, I would like to echo every word of the President of the Board of Trade as to its advantages to our mercantile community and our exporters to Germany.
I come, however, to what makes the Bill objectionable in my eyes, and in the eyes of a great many men in this country who follow the calling of the sea. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the resolutions sent to him by the Joint Seafarers' Council. I find myself in a difficulty here, because the pilots are represented on the Joint Seafarers' Council. I have the honour to be president of the Pilots' Association, and, therefore, I wish to
say that I am not speaking in that capacity at all. I realise that the pilots go with a majority of the Seafarers' Council in this matter. But there are other seafaring bodies, and I wish to seek support, first, from the Mercantile Marine Service Association, which is a very old body and has among its members the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who I am glad to see on that bench, and my Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), a Lord of the Treasury, and I am also glad to find my own name in such distinguished company. There is also another Noble Lord who is a member of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions. Therefore, we have strong Government support on this body.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Those hon. Members are members of this association for charitable purposes, not for political purposes, I believe. If you read the book you will find that these members are simply honorary members, to distribute the funds to which they have contributed for charitable purposes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to make too great a point of that. I am an honorary member. I did not know the hon. Member was also, but I see he is associated with that body, and I am very glad to hear it. I quoted those names, not as showing that those gentlemen naturally supported the views of the secretary whose letter I am going to quote to the House, but as showing that it is not a body to be altogether neglected. This is what the secretary wrote to me on the 16th March last:
Amongst other provisions the Bill permits the re-entry of German seamen to serve on ships registered in the United Kingdom. As the senior representative organisation of British masters and officers, I am desired by my Council respectfully to invite your opposition to the Measure.
Figures are quoted, but they do not quite agree with those of the right hon. Gentleman. In 1914, he says, there were 30,960 foreigners approximately, exclusive of lascars, serving in the British mercantile marine, and of these 5,000 at least were Germans and 950 of Austrian nationality. There were 113 German masters, 49 German mates, 182 German
boatswains, 60 German engineers, etc. The Mercantile Marine Service Association views the passage of this portion of the Bill with apprehension.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I make it clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Treaty stands or falls together? If he opposes any part of it, he opposes the whole of it. Let that be perfectly clear.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am naturally well aware of that, but I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for attempting to remind me of it. I am now going to quote the opinion of a sister association, the Marine Service Guild. I am quoting now from the "Morning Post" of 4th December, in which its secretary, Lieutenant Moore, pointed out that at Liverpool there would be a rush of Germans to join British ships. He said the free entry of aliens to the service would be fatal to the hopes of young British seamen, and that owing to the depression in shipping there were hundreds of young men unable to find berths. He said, also, that the effect of the alien invasion on the morale of the mercantile marine would be disastrous, and that the guild was strongly opposed to such a concession. I admit there has been a great deal of misapprehension about this Bill, but surely the secretary of the Marine Service Guild cannot be accused of not knowing the facts of the case. Laymen may easily fall into the error of thinking this Bill would open British shipping to an influx of foreigners of all sorts, whereas, as we know perfectly well, it only removes the ban from Germans, Austrians, etc. There is another body, representing the men, the Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union, and their London secretary has written me a letter of which I will read only a few words. He says:
It is difficult for the Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union, associated as it is with the international seamen's movement, to oppose the proposal, particularly as no restriction exists on the employment of other alien seamen, but in the face of the phenomenal unemployment amongst British seamen there is no alternative.
Figures are then quoted, but, as later figures were given me by the right hon. Gentleman, I will not read them. Then these words are used, and this answers,
I think, the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman when he reminded us of what he called the "Seamen's Charter" in the Bill, by which aliens cannot be employed in British ships at less wages than the current rates for all seamen in those British ships. The writer says:
The disparity in wages will induce German seamen to flock to British ships, attracted by the higher wages, and although wages must conform to the British standard where German seamen are employed on British ships, the additional labour available must inevitably lead to a reduction in wages.
8.0 p.m.
It is recognised by all who have the interests of the mercantile marine of this country at heart that our seamen do not, in all cases, receive the training and the apprenticeship they should have. On the other hand, the Germans, and it is to the credit of successive German Governments, do receive a much better training, and therefore in many cases the Germans start with a certain advantage over our men. That is not the fault of our men, but it is a matter to be deplored, and I hope it is one of the questions the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfaction upon when his Estimates come up for discussion. Yesterday I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give us the figures of unemployment in the British Mercantile Marine, and I was very sorry to hear him read out that on the 2nd March, 1925, no fewer than 17,841 seamen, firemen, cooks, stewards and other workers on board ship were registered as unemployed. That is a terrible figure, and it does not include a great many officers, and I believe I am also right in saying that it does not include the unemployed lascars and others of British nationality. I think I am right in saying that that figure refers to only European white seamen, and we have nearly 18,000 unemployed. What would be said on both sides of this House if our ports were opened up to an influx of German miners, railwaymen, transport workers to work in our factories and mines and to engage in transport work in this country? What would be said by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and hon. Gentlemen opposite? There would be an immediate outcry, and I do not see why the seamen should be left to fend for themselves in this matter. Of course, I know that we cannot keep on this particular differentia-
tion against ex-enemy seamen indefinitely, but the mercantile marine is suffering from acute unemployment and the time is not appropriate for removing this particular ban. The officials of the seamen's organisation point out that at the present moment there are dozens and scores of men waiting for every vacancy that occurs, and you may have men of fine physique and training who happen to be Germans obtaining these jobs whereas our men, not being so well trained and of inferior physique, will have to go to the wall. In these circumstances I could not possibly allow this Bill to pass without making a protest in the only way that is open to me.
I want to say a word or two upon the question of Reserves for the Royal Navy. May I point out that the Navy must look forward to the Mercantile Marine for its Reserves, and every extra foreigner employed on our British ships means one less potential seaman or fireman who can be called upon in time of war to assist the Royal Navy. That is a matter which cannot be overlooked. I do not, however, base myself primarily on that argument, but I do say that with the extraordinary amount of unemployment in the Mercantile Marine which has existed for the last three years it is not fair to our seamen to open up a fresh class of competitors for the very few berths that remain for them.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to second the Amendment.
The President of the Board of Trade has stated that it was impossible to support this Amendment unless you are against the Treaty as a whole, but that is not our view. As a matter of fact we are strongly in favour of this Treaty as a whole, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade and his predecessor on the work they have done in concluding this Treaty because it will be of great benefit to the trade of this country and, eventually, to the seamen themselves.
At the same time we feel bound to make our protest against subjecting the seamen of this country to this added competition now without giving them any compensation for being deprived of the protection they now enjoy under the Regulations to which the President has referred, and which will be rescinded by this Bill. At the present time they do
enjoy a certain measure of protection against competition by ex-enemy aliens, but if that protection is to be removed in our view they ought to receive some compensation, and for these reasons I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. MARCH: I should be wanting in my duty if I did not raise my protest against this Bill. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, I represent a constituency which contains a large number of seamen who have been unemployed for two or three years and who have no prospect of getting employment even now. If this restriction is going to bo taken off then their chance of employment is going to be made a great deal worse. I have had representations made to me from officials of the marine workers' organisation which represents cooks, stewards and various other classes. They point out that they are very much concerned about a number of elderly men who did good service during the War—I know two of them who were submerged at least three times—and they are not exactly physically fit for ordinary seamen's work, but they are quite suitable, for carrying on their work as cooks and stewards, and now they will be told that they are not likely to get employment in an insurable trade, and consequently they are exempt from unemployment pay.
Having no other source of income, like many other elderly seamen, their only course is to go to the board of guardians, and there we shall have to keep these people who are willing to work. They will have to present themselves at the Board of Trade offices, get a card stamped, and state that they have been to the Board of Trade to seek employment and have been refused employment because younger men have been taken on. These men claim that, owing to the present abnormal condition of affairs, this is not an opportune time to bring in a Measure of this description without some kind of restriction. They seem to think that there can be some limitation made in connection with this matter.
Having heard the President of the Board of Trade explain that the Aliens Restriction Act will be enforced by the Minister of Labour in the same way as now, I agree that these men cannot come in specially to take the work of our seamen, but they must come over in some
ship or other to be repatriated. If that is done I admit that a great deal of the feeling against these foreigners will be relieved very considerably. I hope that the Board of Trade and all concerned do really understand that these men feel that what is now proposed is going to handicap them more than ever in the future. If these proposals are going to be carried out by the Minister of Labour, and the Home Office carry out their work in regard to restrictions, I think these men will be relieved very considerably.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [10th March].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1924-26.

CLASS I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid."

CLASS II.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924–25.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:

Deficits on Gross Expenditure—
£
£
£


Vote 4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
14,900




Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—





Section I. Personnel
545,100




Section II. Materiel
197,300



Vote 9. Naval Armaments
15,700




Vote 10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
134,100




Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
319,200




Vote 12. Admiralty Office
232,000




Vote 14. Non-effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
106,900




Amount anticipated to be written off as irrecoverable
15,000







1,580,200

REPORT [17th March].

Resolution reported,

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924-25.

CLASS II.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £268,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses Manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to make certain inquiries upon this Vote with regard to sea fisheries. On this point I would like a reply from the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, because I know he is a well-known authority on sea fisheries. There is great apprehension on the North-East Coast with regard to the continued shortage of fish on certain of the very valuable fishing banks, such as the Dogger Bank, and so on. I am more concerned with the work of the trawlers in the North-East Coast fishing centres. It is a fact that the catches of fish have not been as good as they were before the War, or immediately following the War. The fish are very much smaller, and there are an increasing growth of weed and a great scarcity of the food upon which the fish feed.
I want to ask the Government whether they are fully alive to these facts, and have they any theories to account for the continued shortage of fish? Is it due to over-fishing since the War or under-fishing during the War? It may be due to the high price of fish or to the fact that the stocks have been depleted. It may also be due to the minute organisms on which the fish feed having been affected by various maladies. Are research experiments being carried out on this question in conjunction with the
other maritime countries concerned? I know that certain experiments are now going on in Denmark, France, and Germany, and it would be just as well if we had some co-operation in this matter. With regard to what I have said about weed, have the Government any views on this point, or is there any means of dealing with it? Have any experiments been made with any form of weed killer—

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir ROBERT HORNE: rose —

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I understood that the ordinary procedure was that the objector should speak first. I was advised to-day to that effect.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It is not for me to know what views are going to be expressed by an hon. Member who may catch my eye. It is, however, the common custom that those who object to a Bill of this kind should speak first.

Sir R. HORNE: Then, as I strongly support the Bill, I shall readily yield to the privilege of listening to my hon. and learned Friend, before I begin to make any remarks on my own account.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The extension proposed in this Bill is one of the largest that has been proposed for many years. The area of the City of Glasgow is already about 19,000 acres, and, as far as I can make out from the figures, it is proposed by this extension to add to it very nearly 30,000 acres.

Sir R. HORNE: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is certainly over 20,000. It may be that, since the extension was lodged, wiser counsels, though not very wise counsels, have prevailed, and that they have cut down the enormous area that was originally proposed. I do not know exactly what is now left. I am told that it is 12,000, but even 12,000 is a colossal addition. I understand that it is 21,000 in their own statement, but I understand the original figure was much larger. Even 12,000 acres is a colossal expansion, made at the expense of well-organised and well - administered neighbouring counties. I look in the Bill for a statement of the reason for it, and the only concrete statement I find as to the reasons for the addition is that the neighbouring counties adjoin the City of Glasgow. Of course, the larger the area that is taken, the more there will be adjoining them, and that might lead them to any distance.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Even to Argyllshire !

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, they have an estate in Argyllshire, called Ardgoil. They state that the areas in question are to a great extent provided with gas and water by the Corporation. One would almost think that these were benevolent donations made to the inhabitants of the adjoining areas, but in point of fact they charge us 1s. for water, while they charge the inhabitants of Glasgow 5d., and yet we would rather pay the 1s. than come; inside the boundary. It is the same with the charges for gas. These are mercantile adventures, which are very well remunerated, and it is no reason for taking in these areas that these services are supplied from a common source. That could be done, and should be done, by co-operative effort between the different areas, but that is no reason for the administration being put on one basis and in one hands.
They also say that there are other communal services. I do not know what that means, unless it means the tramways. Certainly the tramways of Glasgow extend over a very wide area, but, according to the statement of the general manager of the Glasgow Tramways, these outside areas, particularly in Lanarkshire, are the best paying parts, and when
they got leave to run the tramways over these different areas, it was expressly agreed that they would never allege the existence of the tramways as a reason for annexation. Therefore, we can rule out the other communal services, if they mean the tramways, as a reason for annexation of these areas. Then it is said that there is a community of interest between the added areas and the city; but there is a community of interest between us all, and that is not a sufficient reason. Then they say that the growth and development of the added areas is largely due to the prosperity of the city, and the extension of the activities of the corporation. If that were so one would have thought the corporation would have tried to take in Clydebank. Their sewage works are there. Why do they not take in Clydebank, and give it a hand in its present troubles?
Then they say they require increased housing accommodation. They have, however, plenty of room for building in Glasgow. They have an enormous area available. On this I should like to read some extracts from the evidence of Mr. Sutherland, the Water Engineer to the Corporation, before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Glasgow Corporation (Water, Tramways, Etc.) Bill in 1014. He was asked:
Taking first of all the city itself, how many acres of land available for building, but not covered with building, are there within the city boundary?
And his answer was:
There are 11,170 acres unbuilt but buildable land within the city boundaries.
That cannot all have disappeared since 1914. The evidence went on as follows:
When you say buildable, you have to deduct something from that for open spaces and so forth, have you not?—Yes, but we do not know how it will be utilised.
Of course, it is a rough calculation, but if you deduct 30 per cent. for that, it leaves 7.819 acres, does it not?—It does. Then we presume that it will be occupied at the rate of 50 persons to the acre, which is a low rate for urban land.
It is a low rate for urban land, of course, if you confine yourself to the actual land covered with buildings?—Yes. The reason we took such a low rate is that we do not expect people will be allowed to build in Glasgow, even within the municipality, in the same crowded manner as in the past.
That would give within the city accommodation for close on 400,000 people, would it not?—Yes, to be accurate, 390.950.
You have besides that, as the map shows, a considerable area within your limits of supply which are beyond the city boundary?—Yes.
On the same basis, how many acres of that do you reckon available for building?—25,000.
That is after deducting the 30 per cent. again?—Yes."
I think that that clearly proves that the question of building does not come into this at all. They have an unlimited area for building. They may have schemes outside, but so have we, and before our building schemes in Renfrewshire—

Mr. MACLEAN: Do you represent Renfrewshire?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes.

Mr. MACLEAN: In this House?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, I represent a county area, and I think it is my duty to protect counties against being urbanised.
One reason why this and the other two Bills should not be allowed to go forward now is that there has been a serious movement against these attempts to destroy county areas. County administration is just as efficient, if not more efficient than urban administration. There has been sitting for two years in England a Royal Commission appointed for the following purpose:
To inquire as to the existing law and procedure relating to the extension of county boroughs and the creation of new county boroughs in England and Wales, and the effect of such extensions or creations on the administration of the councils of counties and of non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts, to investigate the relations between these several local authorities, and generally to make recommendations as to their constitution, area and functions.
That Commission has been sitting and has taken a very large body of evidence contained in about six volumes. Its Report is expected out in a comparatively short time, and although England and Wales were not specifically stated to be included in it, and Scotland was not expressly mentioned, the very same principles that apply to England and Wales apply to Scotland in this connection. The Royal Commission for England and Wales was set up consequent on proposals by the cities of Leeds and Bradford to extend their boundaries at the expense
of the adjoining county areas. They proposed to take in the whole of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which was not to be tolerated. The Bradford and Leeds proposals were simply the culmination of a series of proposals of increasing magnitude which would have led to the destruction of county government in England and Wales. Under this proposal it would be impossible to carry on the adjoining areas of Renfrewshire. They would be so depleted in area and in population that they would cease to be economic or administrative units. May I read a statement by the late Viscount Long, who was responsible for the Bill establishing county councils, which was considered at the time, and still is I maintain, a great democratic proposal giving the right to the electors in these areas to decide their own government. Lord Long stated in the Memorandum which he submitted to the Royal Commission:
I had always in mind the probable necessity for borough extensions in some cases, and a provision for that purpose was inserted in the Local Government Bill at the outset. Never for one moment, however, did I anticipate that advantage should or would bo taken of that provision for the purpose of application for extensions such as those to which we have of late years unfortunately become somewhat accustomed. My own idea of the purpose of the extension provisions was and is that there should be proper opportunity for a borough to claim a moderate adjustment of its boundaries in cases where it could be shown either that, without such extension, the proper administration of the exixsting borough area would be unfair, or that an obvious and necessary outgrowth of the borough should, in the interests of good local government, be administered therewith.
There is nothing here about the needs of local government. The local government of the adjoining counties will compare well with the City of Glasgow. He further stated:
I have naturally, as the person most responsible for the 1888 Act, taken great interest in the system of county government thereby established and I have felt some reasonable degree of pride in the satisfactory manner in which the county councils have, to my mind, carried out the many duties which were then and have subsequently been imposed upon them. I look however, with serious misgivings upon the inroads that are constantly being made upon the territorial and financial integrity of the administrative counties and I cannot help but feel that a continuance of the present policy will ultimately lead to the disintegration of county government as we know it—a most regrettable result.
If you are not content with saying that the English Commission does not apply to Scotland, the principle applies to Scotland, and it will undoubtedly be the correct course to appoint a separate Commission for Scotland to go into the matter. All extensions in England and Wales have been stopped as the result of this Commission. The reason for this was set forth in 1922 by the then Minister of Health who said that to stop them was the only reasonable thing to do—
It is obviously mere foolishness to encourage an enormous expenditure of the ratepayers' money until we are in a position to decide. Until then all this money really goes for nothing and all this expenditure is thrown away. I certainly am not going to be responsible for encouraging anything of that kind.
That is the position here. Why should we put the unfortunate ratepayers in the City of Glasgow, and also in these counties, to the colossal expenditure which will be caused if the Bill goes upstairs? If the report of the Royal Commission comes out it is doubtful if the Measure will ever become law. Why cannot hon. Members wait? Do they want to get the Bill through before the Report of the Royal Commission comes out?

Mr. MACLEAN: It does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The rules of reasonableness apply to Scotland. If it is rational in England it will be rational in Scotland. Another objection to including this enormous area is that these huge areas are rapidly becoming unmanageable. The best possible city and county administration is one of a comparatively small area and volume of business. You want to have a town council sitting round a table knowing when the last drains were laid down in particular areas and able to follow out the whole details of management. You cannot have that with an enormous area. I was a member of the City Council of Glasgow many years ago. Even then the volume of 'business was colossal. It was practically a wholetime job. It was an enormous amount of work to read the minutes and documents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you read them?"] I read most of them. It was as hard work as being in this House. You could not follow the whole volume of
the business, and if you increase the area of these towns to a colossal degree what will the result be? It will be a denial of democratic government, because the town councils cannot possibly understand what is going on, and it only means a little addition to the powers of the local borough officers. It is the local borough officers in all these cases who are at the bottom of these extension schemes. Even Glasgow itself was a better city in 1911, before it got its extension, than it is now. It was better administered. The council was smaller, and consequently more efficient. It is now as large as the Parliament of many of the smaller countries in Europe. It must be very difficult for them to look after the business of so enormous an undertaking as the Glasgow Corporation.
But there is also a moral and spiritual clement. If you get these enormous sizes the citizens tend to lose their civic rights and to lose their interest. This Bill is mainly the outcome of the empty ambition to be the second biggest city in the British Empire. Mere bigness is not an adequate ground. It is very much better to have small and efficiently administered communities. We do not desire to see our towns get greater and greater. Is not the blot on our civilisation the fact of the concentration of vast masses of people into huge towns, when what we really want to aim at is more to deurbanise the population, to get new small towns, to get our interests scattered and the people living in semi-rural conditions? This will not achieve it. This will lead to greater and greater congestion. It will take in an enormous area. The original proposal was 14,000 acres from Lanark, 11,000 from Renfrew and nearly 3,000 from Dumbarton. They propose to take £210,000 of rateable area from Lanark, £320.000 from Renfrew and £72,000 from Dumbarton. The inevitable result would be the complete destruction of the northern parts of Renfrewshire, and serious depletion of the resources of those well-administered parts of other counties. The whole trend is to go against these big areas towards decentralisation, and I feel sure that, from the Report that ought to be waited for of this Royal Commission, it will be found that the principles laid down are precisely contrary to these attempts to create bureacratic aggregations of populations
and power. In these circumstances I appeal to this House to postpone this Bill for at least six months to give them an opportunity of getting the benefit of the Royal Commission, when the principles therein will be found applicable to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to speak on behalf of those who are primarily concerned in this enormous extension which has been spoken of—I mean the people who are at present living in those areas which it is proposed to add to the boundaries of the City of Glasgow. Those areas are situated in the counties of Lanark. Renfrew and Dumbarton. I have the honour to represent a portion of the great county of Lanark, the portion which is more nearly adjacent to the boundaries of Glasgow and which would be most affected if this Bill were to pass into law. We are entitled to ask what are the views of the people whom it is proposed to hand over in this way as regards their municipal government. What are the views of those people? I can speak for those with whom I am connected, and I can say this, that no one at all wants to be annexed to Glasgow in (his way. I would point out that in this Bill no estimate has been made of the probable effects of this annexation as regards increase of rates or difficulties of administration or anything of that sort. All that is left to the imagination and to the feelings of those concerned. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that in the area in Lanarkshire which it is proposed to annex there is practically nobody who desires that annexation to take place. This Bill is opposed by the following bodies: by the county council of Lanark, by the two district committees of the lower and middle ward of Lanark, and by the Lanarkshire education authority, which is much interested in this question. Public meetings have been held at Bishopbriggs, Millerston, Stepps, Mount Vernon, Garthamlock, Lambhill, Burnside, Eastfield and Carmunnock. I have at home reports of a great many of these meetings, and in every case, by an. enormous majority, it has been decided that the annexation to Glasgow is not desired.
We used to hear a great deal about the time of the Treaty of Versailles of the expression "self-determination." That I believe to be an unsound doctrine with regard to international matters, because there are many other considerations that enter in. But with regard to a matter of this sort, I maintain that self-determination must come into the consideration of such a matter, and we are bound to consider the wishes of those whose lives will be so closely affected as is the case with regard to these people. Petitions have been lodged against this Bill by all the bodies and most of the people whom I have mentioned, and there is also opposition to this Bill within the City of Glasgow itself. It is a mistake to suppose that all the citizens of Glasgow are in favour of it because the Ratepayers' Federation have already published and circulated a document in which they give reasons for their dislike and objection to this Bill passing. One cannot very much wonder at that because we know what the effect of previous annexation has been with regard to rating. On every occasion in the history of the City of Glasgow when these annexations have taken place, they have always been followed by an increase in the rates. On the last occasion when Glasgow was increased in size, in 1912, the rates at that time amounted to 3s. 6d. in the £. In 1923 they had risen to 6s. in the £. There is no doubt whatever that if this annexation is granted, and if this Bill is passed into law, one of the first things that the city will do will be to engage in all sorts of schemes which will cast greater expense on the citizens, and there will in all probability be another increase in the rates. [Interruption.] If you will allow me to go on with my speech, I am sure you will all have an opportunity of saying what you have to say in favour of this Bill.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is in order for an hon. Gentleman to stand up and assert that he is quoting from a manifesto and deliberately omit one of the most important sentences in that manifesto.

Sir A. SPROT: I am sure there is no point of Order here.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not out of Order.

Sir A. SPROT: I quoted from a certain manifesto, and I was not bound to quote the whole of it. There is nothing in it so far as I know which I might not have quoted for my own purpose. However, I shall pass over that altogether. The last annexation to the City of Glasgow took place in 1912, and when that had been obtained the Chairman of the Committee of both Houses which examined the matter expressed himself as follows. He said:
Glasgow has obtained all that which, in my view, she requires for some time to come.
That was in 1912. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in reality there has been a lapse of only two normal years since that last annexation took place and the chairman expressed himself in that fashion. With regard to the county of Lanark, in which I am interested, may I ask the House to consider what the effect upon that county will be if this annexation be granted. There is a small slice of the middle ward which it is proposed to annex, but of course the greater part is taken from the lower ward. In the lower ward, which has its own district committor, which administers the roads and public health separately from the rest of the county, which has its own housing scheme, and which is charged under the county council with the rest of the local government, it is proposed to take 12,870 out of 24,000 acres, 167,000 of population, and £161,310 of valuation. That is what is to be taken from the lower ward in Lanarkshire if the annexation comes into effect. In other words, the effect will be. speaking of the lower ward alone, that it will lose 51 per cent. of its area, 53 per cent. of its population, and 51 per cent. of its valuation.
I ask the House to consider what a serious matter that will be. If that were to happen the lower ward might have to be abolished altogether and combined with the middle ward. That would give rise to very great complications. There are areas devoted to special water and drainage districts, and there are housing schemes, and it would be a, matter of very great difficulty indeed to combine this lower ward with the other parts of the county. It would create a great deal of confusion and expense. It is unfair to the county of Lanark to subject it to such treatment as that. These are some
of the reasons which lead me to second the rejection of the Bill. No one wants it. There is no real claim on the part of the City of Glasgow, because although their tramways do run out into the county of Lanark, and other places, still on every occasion when the county of Lanark has given permission for the City of Glasgow to run its tramways into the country the stipulation has been made that that is not to be considered an argument in favour of annexation.
With regard to water, gas and other subjects of that kind, Glasgow does supply places which are outside her own boundaries with Loch Katrine water, and also with gas, but it does so at a profit. People outside the city boundaries pay 1s. in the £for their water while citizens of Glasgow pay only 5d. in the £. A profit is also made from the gas. I have tried to arrive at some figure to show the increase in rates which will be inflicted upon the people living in these districts which it is proposed to annex if this Bill is carried. But it is very difficult to arrive at comparable figures, because the rates are imposed on a different system in the city from that by which they are regulated in the county, and in the county there are great differences, because we have special water districts, special drainage districts, and special lighting and scavenging districts, and we also have districts which are not within any of these districts, and, therefore; the total rating is a very variable figure, and it i? almost impossible to give one. But there is no doubt there would be an increase in rates for the people who are annexed. The calculation which has been given to me shows that it would vary from 5d. in the £up to 2s. 10d. in the £. That is a very serious matter for those who are asked to agree to the annexation of their districts to the City of Glasgow.
In conclusion I ask the House to consider the point which has been placed before it already by my hon. and learned Friend, namely, that a Commission is sitting and has been sitting for the last two years with regard to the principles upon which these extensions should be made in England. That, of course, has only an indirect application to Scotland, but there is no doubt that if any new principle is recommended by that commission, that principle would be applied to Scotland sooner or later. The Report
of that Commission is almost due. I suggest that this is the wrong time to bring forward such a proposal as this. We should wait until we know upon what principle extensions of boundaries are to be made in Great Britain in the future. Over and above that, this is a period in which our country is passing through a critical time, more especially in the district for which I speak. The coal trade, the iron trade and so on are all very much depressed. For that reason I ask the House not to give this Bill a second reading, because it would mean immense expense both to the city and those other districts which will have to oppose this Bill if it goes upstairs. This is the wrong time to do it, and the people most nearly concerned are opposed to it, and for that reason I ask the House to reject the proposal here and now.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I confess that it is a great pride to me that the first speech which I have been privileged to make in this Parliament should be in favour of a Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill for the extension of the boundaries of Glasgow. A remark has been made that people in Glasgow are not unanimous on this question. I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman would expect the opinion of Glasgow to be taken, but if he adverts to the ordinary means of obtaining the views of the populace, namely, that of the representative members of the Glasgow Municipal Council, he will discover that out of the municipal body of 113 members, only two wove against this Bill being proceeded with, and these two were not even so courageous as my two hon. Friends who have moved the rejection of this Bill, because all that they sought was a. period of delay for consideration. That in itself ought to be a very considerable factor in determining the attitude of the House of Commons upon this question. But I do not think that anyone here will Be surprised at the promulgation of a Bill of this kind at the present time, when the House is made aware that Glasgow, of all the great cities in this kingdom, is the most densely populated for the area that it occupies. It is true, of course, that in order to extend it must take some portions of the areas of the counties which surround it. That is a circumstance which is inevitable in all extensions of any borough, and unless you are to say
that no borough shall ever be extended, it is obvious that counties must suffer, under the process of extension.
Extensions are not only contemplated by the Statute law of this country, but are regarded as inevitable. You will find that view set forth at great length through a great variety of Statutes which provide for the consideration of the precise questions which ought to be determined before such extensions are granted. Accordingly, we must take it that it is the contemplated movement in such a country as we inhabit that great borough areas will from time to time require to be extended, when we find the law laid down as to the considerations which should move men's minds in proceeding to determine such questions. Therefore, when considerations are put forward by counties with regard to the effect upon their particular fortunes if a borough is extended, it is obvious that that becomes a question, not for the House of Commons to decide in the first place, but a question which requires to be thrashed out before a Committee of the House of Commons, because in each case it must be a question of fact as to whether the extension is justified or not, and that is a matter of evidence.
For example, take this particular Bill. It proposes to take a portion of Lanarkshire, a portion of Dumbartonshire, and a portion of Renfrewshire. My hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill has become a Member fur all the Counties of Scotland, and Argyllshire has extended itself across the Firth of Clyde to embrace a county which is very well represented by two of my Friends in this House who can speak for themselves and for their constituents. What may be the fate of this Bill in Committee when inquiry takes place I do not know. Lanarkshire may be able to put up a case against extension into their area, while Dumbartonshire may not. Renfrewshire may be able to show that none of their area ought to be taken. In fact there would happen, after inquiry, that which happens after every such inquiry, namely, that no one would get all he asked and no one preserve all that he seeks to maintain, but that the Committee, after hearing the evidence, comes to a decision as to what is fair and just in all the circumstances. How can the House to-night, upon the mere statement of individual Members here, without any evidence, at
all come to a conclusion as to whether Glasgow is justified in making this application or not?
9.0 p.m.
Almost from time immemorial, in dealing with such questions as this, or at least for as long a time as such Bills have come before Parliament, the common practice of Parliament has been to grant a Second Beading and to send the question in issue for inquiry before Parliamentary Committees. The matter is then sifted both by a Committee of the House of Commons and by a Committee of the House of Lords, and only if they agree can the Bill be put forward with the result at which the Committees have arrived. Thereafter there is still an opportunity for this House, if it disapproves of the result at which the House of Commons Committee have arrived, on the Report stage and with the evidence before them—not upon speeches such as we are making to-night—to decide whether in fact the result at which the Committee had arrived has been justified by the evidence. In the present circumstances and with a Bill of this importance the House will be very ill-advised to turn its back upon previous practice, and, without any evidence whatever to justify it, to arrive at a conclusion on the one side or the other. Someone may say, "Is there even a prima facie case here?" I agree that if there is no prima facie case at all, it is a waste of time to send this matter to a Committee. But I ask the House to consider for a moment one or two elements which stand out in the allegations which are made by this great city.
After all, when a Bill which is brought before this House upon the practically unanimous decision of a municipality such as that which governs the fate of Glasgow to-day, making certain statements of fact which this House is asked to inquire into, it would be almost monstrous, without any inquiry at all, to reject such a petition unless you can say that the statements in the petition are frivolous and do not deserve inquiry. What is the kind of thing which impresses one as soon as one looks at this particular Bill? Let me advert again to a fact which I have already mentioned. Glasgow is the most densely populated of any of the great cities of this Kingdom.
Until I tell you what that really means it is impossible to appreciate the gravamen of the assertion. The situation to-day is that the density of population in Glasgow is four times that of Edinburgh; it is three times that of Leeds, a representative of which town I see here; three times that of Sheffield; two-and-a-half times that of Birmingham; and one-and-a-half times that of Manchester or Liverpool.
When I have stated those facts alone I have stated enough to justify an application for the extension of boundaries. If a prima facie case is demanded, is there not there a prima facie case on which this House would have full justification in acting? Already, as everyone knows who is connected with Glasgow, the population is spreading over into the surrounding areas, and a great part of the people, in fact, the main part of the people to be annexed, are working in Glasgow—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are they doing wrong?"]—I am not saying that they are wrong, but I am giving reasons why you should inquire as to whether the boundary should be extended. I am not asking the House to come to a decision tonight, but to remit these allegations to a Committee for the purpose of consideration. This is something that the House has never in similar circumstances refused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leeds and Bradford."] I shall come to the Leeds and Bradford case in a moment.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: What about the Liverpool and Bootle case?

Sir R. HORNE: I will pursue my argument apart from these interruptions. The main body of the people who would be annexed—to use a somewhat comprehensive term—under the provisions of this Bill, are people who are working in Glasgow although living outside. Their livelihood depends upon the activities of the great City of Glasgow. The Extension Bill of 1912 was mentioned by the Seconder of the rejection Motion, and I can quite understand the argument which asks, "why should you require another extension in so short a period of time as that between 1912 and 1925." The reason is very obvious when one considers the facts. In 1912 the communities which were added to Glasgow were, in. the main, populous areas with very little vacant space, and accordingly what was
done then helped very little to relieve the congestion of people in Glasgow's small area. It almost staggers the imagination when we realise that Glasgow, with over 1,000,000 of population, has 10,000 acres less area than Edinburgh, with less than half a million population. That is the congested and restricted area within which Glasgow is compelled to do its duty.

Sir H. CRAIK: Why "compelled to do its duty "? Cannot they build these houses whether the area is theirs or not?

Sir R. H0RNE: I shall come to that point in a moment, and I think I shall give my right hon. Friend a not unsatisfactory reply, but I shall finish (he argument with which. I am dealing in the first place. The congested character of the area immediately reflects upon the health statistics. No one who knows anything about the administration of public health in the municipalities of this Kingdom will doubt my remark when I say that public health administration in Glasgow is well known to have been as progressive as that of any other town. The officials who have presided over that great Department have gained an eminence and a distinction which, I am certain, no one will deny them. The effect of the density of population on public health is broadly this, that although Glasgow spends an enormous sum every year on public health—£500,000 a year, or twice as much as Birmingham—nevertheless, owing to the conditions in which the people have to live, in this restricted area, you have statistics which stagger everybody who is anxious for the welfare of this great community. The number of deaths in Glasgow, both of infants and adults, is so high as to oppress the imagination, and when you are considering the extension of the boundaries, you are compelled to take into account the effect of this congestion upon the health of the people. If they cannot find within their own area, cleaner air and wider spaces to which to move the people, it is the duty of those who have the fortunes of these people in their hands to adopt every other means to bring about that beneficial result.
Now I turn to the point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) referred. He asks why Glasgow does not
build houses outside its own area. That is the very thing which Glasgow is compelled to do. Some statistics have been quoted from evidence given, I think, in 1914 by Mr. Sutherland, but I have statistics upon which I am prepared to stand, which show that there is only an area of 1,400 acres in Glasgow to-day available for building, and all that space is needed for ordinary slum clearances, and the requirements of the population within the area. If there is any dispute as to which set of figures is right, that only shows the necessity of going to a body where evidence can be laid upon both sides. The speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the rejection of the Bill would have been admirable if delivered before such a Committee, and I am sure they could have earned large fees in that process, but they were entirely inappropriate to the present occasion when we are dealing purely with the question of whether or not this important question should be dealt with by a Committee. On this housing question what is the fact? The truth is that Glasgow, in order to perform its duty to its people, has been compelled to buy 833 acres outside its own area.

Sir H. CRAIK: What is wrong with that?

Sir R. HORNE: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, these are citizens of Glasgow, and you are putting them outside their own area.

Sip H. CRAIK: They are none the worse.

Sir R. HORNE: If my right hon. Friend were a ratepayer of Glasgow he would understand the position better. These houses are subsidised by Glasgow. Glasgow is in the process of building 8,000 houses for Glasgow citizens, and these houses they are compelled to build outside their own area The result is that Glasgow is compelled to provide a subsidy of £9 per house, even after the Government has done its duty, and that has to be made good by the ratepayers of Glasgow, while the rates upon these houses go to some body outside the area. I do not think I require to say more in order to deal with my right hon. Friend's point. Why should Glasgow become so philanthropic as to subsidise houses for the benefit of rates to be paid to another body outside its area? Wise people
before us have dealt with this matter in legislation. I find, for example, in the Housing and Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1919, a provision on this subject. The House will understand that in certain circumstances, by petition to the Sheriff, you can get extensions of burghs in Scotland. Here are the considerations which in 1919 were laid down for the sheriffs to keep in view in coming to a decision:
In revising the boundaries of a burgh, the sheriff or sheriffs shall take into account the number of dwelling houses, whether existing or about to be erected "—
thus foreseeing this very point—
within the area proposed to be included … the density of the population, the persons for whom and the authority by whom the dwelling houses have been or are to be, erected and all the circumstances of the case, and shall thereafter determine whether that area ought to form part of the burgh and should be included therein.
These are the very conditions which the Committee, when it comes to deal with this matter, will have to consider, and it is appropriate that the Committee should have the opportunity of considering them upon evidence rather than that we should try to arrive at a decision to-night without any evidence at all before us. There are many other considerations, with which I am not going to weary the House, but I think I have put before the House sufficient at least for them to arrive at the conclusion that there is a prima facie case for sending this particular Bill to a Committee in order that the Committee may investigate it. If the Committee reports in favour of the Bill, it will still be competent to this House, and my right hon. Friend, to make their arguments upon the evidence and to try again to have the Bill rejected.
There has been another issue raised, with which I should like to deal for a moment. It is said that a Commission is at present sitting, which is dealing with this very matter, and that it would be inappropriate if the House were to allow any Bill to go forward for inquiry until that Commission has reported. That Commission has been sitting for two years, and no man alive knows when it is going to report. If there is an answer to that, I shall be very glad to hear it, but one does not have very much hope, from the previous proceedings of the Commission, of getting
a very rapid answer. I do not say that by way of reflection on the Commission, because I know it has a very difficult problem to deal with. I saw that my hon. Friend was very much disturbed and was encountering rather heavy weather when he dealt with the precise remit to this Commission, because, as he agreed, it is specifically confined to dealing with England and Wales. There is not a word in regard to Scotland in it, and, in fact, the view of the Commission is that, since they are not dealing with Scotland, they need not invite any Scottish evidence, and that Scotland is not concerned at all. It is the first time that I have seen any attitude taken by a Scottish Member in this House which indicated that in every case what was good enough for England was good enough for us. That may possibly be a sign of grace upon his part, but, so far as I am concerned, I am entirely against anything which this Commission does being regarded as determining our Scottish case. If there is one reason more than another it is this, that the conditions in England are totally different, and that the question which this Commission was set up to determine is a totally different question from that which we are considering now.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: indicated dissent.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, and I will proceed to make good my point. The Commission was set up because of a difficulty that arose in regard to Leeds and Bradford. It arose out of a totally different procedure, which applies to England and not to Scotland. It is competent in England for a borough to approach the Minister of Health with a petition for extension. He then institutes a local inquiry, and, after the inquiry, he comes to a judgment. In that case the Minister of Health, after a local inquiry, came to a judgment in favour of the extension of Leeds and Bradford, and he made a certain suggestion. The matter came up to this House on that procedure, which is not applicable to Scotland at all, and the House rejected the suggestion of the Minister of Health. What this particular Commission was set up to do was to find a means, and report to the House upon the question, whereby you could help the Minister of Health, in these judgments which he had to form, by
arranging a system under which he would not have to come up and make those suggestions to the House only to have them rejected. That is why it is applied purely to England and Wales and not to Scotland, because we have no procedure in Scotland at all comparable to that which there is in England in this respect. I have only to advert to this fact to show how inapposite it is. Quite recently there were similar applications from Clydebank and Renfrew. These have not been turned adrift. It has not—

Sir H. CRAIK: Objections were taken. They were—[Interruption.]

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I should like to call attention to the fact that since this Debate opened, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) has been persistently interrupting and interfering with my colleague, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne).

Sir R. HORNE: My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who appears to have an enthusiastic objection to this Bill, will no doubt state his view. Whatever be the facts about that matter, and whatever explanations may be given, it is intolerable that we should take the view that, because of some Commission which is sitting with regard to an English question, every burgh in Scotland, no matter how congested or what its conditions are, is to await such Commission's report before it can get the necessary means of redress. That is a proposition to which I certainly would never surrender. I say that I have shown at least a very good prima facie case for this Bill. I do not ask anybody to accept it as a solid fact, because it has not been investigated. All that I seek is the necessary investigation, and do not let the House believe that, in committing any new areas to the care of Glasgow, they are committing them to any backward and reactionary community. I do not think I am taking too much pride in a city with which I am very intimately connected. There has been no more stirring and enterprising community than the city of Glasgow and none which, I am sure, has gained more the admiration of the world for the civic progress which it has achieved. I venture, in conclusion,
to say that, to me, it is quite unbelievable that such a community, in such circumstances, should have a Bill rejected by this House without even the opportunity of inquiring into its allegations.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question was raised earlier in the discussion as to how far Glasgow was united in support of this Measure. Probably the best evidence of its unity is to be found in the fact that I rise to support the case so eloquently and ably put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home). I want to confess that I had some hesitation and so had the majority of Glasgow Members in giving their whole-hearted support to this Measure, but our hesitation was due to something that is outwith the four corners of the Bill. We objected to certain acts of administration on the part of the magistrates of the city, and I have no doubt the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. W. Adameon)—who, I understand, intends to follow me in this discussion—will make more of this point than I intend to do. Our objection was to areas being brought into territory which gives to the people less freedom in regard to public meetings than is enjoyed by the people beyond the city boundaries. I do not know that that is an objection to the Bill which would appeal to the Mover or Seconder of its rejection, but it is a criticism on Glasgow which we felt very strongly justified in making. Having considered the matter very carefully, we came to the conclusion that the case for the Bill was so overwhelmingly strong that no sense of irritation that we might have would justify us, as representatives of the city, in placing any impediment in the way of its progress.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pointed to the congested character of the City of Glasgow. On former occasions, when addressing this House on the problem of housing, I have had to paint in very strong language the housing conditions of the city that I represent. I think I am justified in saying that every Member for the city and every Member of this House who knows the city would agree that no language I could use with regard to its housing conditions would be an exaggeration of the situation there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead referred to the fact that
Glasgow has a density of population of 57 as compared with the City of Birmingham's 21. I need not emphasise that point, but I would like to tell the House that in 1919, at the request of the Coalition Government of that time, a statement of Glasgow's requirements in housing was prepared, not by a Labour majority, but by a Conseravtive majority and by the permanent officials of the city. According to that statement, in 1919 there was a shortage of houses in Glasgow of no fewer than 57,000. It was estimated in addition that to meet the annual requirements of the city, arising from an expansion of its population, and the natural decay of property, that an additional 5,000 houses per annum would be required. Since 1919 not more than 7,000 houses have been erected in the city, so that, accepting the accuracy of that statement as a basis, the housing shortage of Glasgow at the moment cannot be far short of 70,000. In the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead it was shown that the land available within the city boundaries for house building would not accommodate more than 16,000 or 17,000 houses. Then you have this very strong point in favour of the Bill, that 70,000 houses are required in the city and that there is not room in the city at the moment for the erection of more than probably a fourth part of the numbers required.
May I on this question of housing remind the House of another factor in the situation in our unfortunate city—I mean unfortunate in this respect while fortunate in many other respects. According to the report of the medical officer of health we have 40,000 houses at the moment that are overcrowded to the extent of three or more persons per room. The Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart) tells me that I am stating it rather moderately when I put it that way; that they are overcrowded to the extent of more than three persons to a room. I ask people who are familiar with housing conditions in England to remember what is involved in overcrowding to the extent of the figures I have quoted. Within the city there is barely room for the slum clearance schemes that would enable us to deal with that problem alone. As has been already pointed out, the Corporation has been compelled
to go outside its borders to purchase estates and to proceed to erect houses even under conditions which compel them to subsidise these houses, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir Robert Home) pointed out that other local authorities will be entitled to draw the rates. The Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot), in that wonderfully forcible and fighting speech with which he seconded the rejection of the Bill, tried to paint the difficulties and injustices that would be encountered and done to the neighbouring localities by the operations of this Bill. He pointed particularly to his own locality. He said, "Our rates will go up from something between 5d. to, I think, 2s. 10d. in the £," and he intended, I suppose, to impress the House that in that way Glasgow would be getting something to which Glasgow was not entitled. I want to tell the House that in the part of the constituency so ably represented by the hon. Member most adjacent to the city is an area called Hogganfield Loch. Glasgow purchased a considerable area of that ground and spent many thousand pounds in laying out that loch as a healthy recreation place for the city and the country. It has been provided by the Glasgow ratepayers, and it is enjoyed by the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. I put it to him that it is not outwith the bounds of reason that people who have been so well provided for by the City of Glasgow should be asked to pay a few pence annually towards the maintenance of Glasgow's generous provision.

Sir A. SPROT: May I interrupt? That is a property of the city outside its boundaries. If this transfer is made and if that area is taken within the city, then the rates, instead of being payable to the county of Lanarkshire, will be payable to the city, but compensation will have to be given on that account to the county of Lanark for depriving them of that large rating area. I am very familiar with the place.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The hon. Member makes two points. First is that the rates will be payable to the city of Glasgow. His second point is that the Bill is so considerate of the interests of the outside areas that, according to his own admission, has been made to secure that none of these areas will lose financially by Glasgow being granted what Glasgow needs for the purpose of public health.
I think the interjection by the hon. Gentleman rather strengthens the case which I have to make against the Amendment. It is remarkable that the leadership of the opposition to this Bill should come from Argyllshire. I hope Members on this side of the House are sufficiently familiar with the geography of Scotland to know that the area represented by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire i? not in immediate danger from anything that is proposed in this Bill. Therefore, I cannot understand the opposition of the hon. Member to this proposal. I cannot forget that, at one time, he was a distinguished representative in this House of the city of Glasgow, and it may be that he has still rankling in his mind the fear that, if this policy be pursued—and he is yet a comparatively young man—it may yet occur to the city of Glasgow, as a means of restoring to the city his valuable services, to propose the annexation of the territory he now represents; but if it will do anything to remove his opposition to this Bill, I think I can go the length of giving an undertaking on behalf of the city, that for the duration of his representation of Argyllshire, Glasgow will not propose to include that territory within the city boundary. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is only for a couple of years!")
The case for the extension of the boundaries of the city of Glasgow is so strong, that unless an eminently strong case against this proposal can be submitted to this House, we are entitled, at least, to get a Second Beading of this Bill. I put it that no very strong case has been made out against it. The principal argument relied on has been the Commission which is dealing with this problem for England and Wales. I submit there is a real need for the whole question of local government and its future to be considered and dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I quite agree with that, but I think it would be most unfair to hold back the just claims of a city like Glasgow until that has been done. I am sure that neither the Mover nor Seconder of the rejection of this Bill would submit for a single moment that that is a thing which should hurriedly be accomplished, if we are to begin afresh with the whole problem of local government, as I think we should. But I submit that the case of Glasgow is so strong,
that it should not be asked to stand still in its present deplorable condition until we have produced a new plan of local government.
The other point is this. The hon. Member, I think, who seconded the rejection, seemed to suggest that the county areas were going to be seriously injured by the carrying out of these proposals, and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire quoted at length from a statement made by the late Lord Long about the unfairness of doing anything that would interfere with the financial integrity of the counties, through the extension of the burghs. I put it that Glasgow is, undoubtedly, the financial and industrial centre—I will not go the length of saying the intellectual centre—but it is, undoubtedly, the centre of the area with which we are dealing here, and anything which cripples Glasgow will cripple the financial integrity of these county areas much more than they can possibly suffer by anything contained in this Bill. To allow Glasgow to get healthier, to save that 50 per cent. on its health administration, to which the right hon. Member for Hillhead referred; to allow it to grow, and become greater and greater, is decidedly in the interest of the counties which depend so largely on its prosperity.
I can only emphasise the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead to allow us to get a Second Heading of this Bill. It is all right to say that we ought to go in for a policy of de-urbanising our huge centres. In what way can you scatter the population other than in the way proposed by this Measure? If you are to give us more space, if yon believe a million people should not be compelled to dwell on 19.000 acres of land, then the first step is to recognise the just basis of the demand we are making on the House to-night. I appeal to the House in the interest of the public health of the city, and of the prior people who are affected by (he congestion which we can describe statistically, but which we can never impress adequately on the minds of people who are not familiar with it from intimate experience—I appeal, on behalf of those people, to the House to give us a Second Heading of this Bill and allow the Committee upstairs to adjust these little differences—Committee points, really—that
have been raised by those who are opposing the Bill. If you do that, you will bo only carrying out what has been the traditional policy of this House, and I think you will be performing an act of social justice.

Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELL: It is with much temerity that I rise to-night for the first time to address the House, but I feel that I shall receive the usual courtesy, and, shall I say, sympathy on this trying occasion. I speak in support of the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). Glasgow is a great city; she is the second city of the Empire, and in no respect overshadowed by her sister city on the East coast lying north of the Tweed. Glasgow's greatness is not due to the energy or activity of her present administrators. It is due to the wisdom and the prudence of the administrators of the last two or three generations. But greatness is not always free from evil. Greatness is apt to promote a spirit of avarice, and to encourage hasty and imprudent action, and in this Bill we have a very good example of greed, and a very glaring example of attempting to rush legislation. Glasgow is anxious to extend her boundaries, and asks for legislation which will enable her legally to confiscate large areas of land from the adjacent counties, to tear away certain villages and districts from the county government under which they have flourished and which they have enjoyed for generations, and from which they have no desire to separate.
I myself am a Glasgow man, but I do not hesitate for a moment to come to the aid of the weaker localities in this respect. The City of Glasgow, in my opinion, is posing as a fairy godmother who is casting gold and treasures and rich gifts at the feet of the children she wants to adopt. But in reality Glasgow is a pirate king who, when once the prize is won and the unsuspecting maiden is safely abroad the lugger, would enslave and fetter her to a system of government and high taxation unsuitable for rural districts. It strikes me very forcibly that Glasgow is asking for this large extension chiefly out of sentiment. Her idea in going in for this expansion is that she wishes to remain for all time the second city in the
Empire. We have got to remember that the county districts and villages have also their own point of view and sentiments, and the wishes and views of these places ought to be respected and consulted. With the exception of one village, I think I am right in saying that all the districts and all the villages which Glasgow proposes to annex are practically to a man and woman strongly and bitterly opposed to annexation. I feel quite sure of this, that my hon. Friends on the opposite side of the House will agree with me when I say that the wishes of the people ought to be consulted, because, after all, it is the voice of the people that rules.
Glasgow, I think, cannot grumble at the treatment which she has received during the last few generations. About 14 years ago she received a huge increase in her boundaries. Surely her population has not grown to such an alarming extent that she requires a large additional area of 22,000 acres. If so, then the city fathers cannot be accused of being very far-sighted, or of having a very far-sighted policy. To my mind, Glasgow's hands are very full at the present time. She has 19,000 acres of land. She has a population of over one million to look after, and considering the trying times through which we are passing, I do not think it is in the interest of the community that greater responsibility should be placed upon the city council of Glasgow. I do not think that Glasgow has distinguished herself in helping to solve the housing problem, nor do I think that she has distinguished herself specially in helping to deal with unemployment. She has been labouring under great difficulties—like other cities—but I do not think that she has handled her trials and tribulations any better, or possibly as well, as many of the county authorities. I do not think that Glasgow can be accused of modesty in any shape or form. She has, as I have said, already 19,000 acres, and she is asking for an additional 22,000 acres. Certainly, Glasgow does not do things by halves!
Glasgow, to my mind, is wooing the simple country maiden with the tempting lure of introducing cheaper gas, cheaper water, cheaper electricity, cheaper tram-cars. And when, after the honeymoon, the bride comes home, she will find out that her marriage settlement consists of a debt of £24,000,000, and that
she has a municipal rate of 6s. in the £, which her devoted husband refuses to pay. The county councils are not opposing this Bill on its merits. Later they will put forward care fill and ample arguments against the Bill. For the moment they merely wish to defer it until the Report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting. There will only be a few months' delay, and it seems to me to be a pity to waste the ratepayers' money and waste the energy and activities of the authorities when every economy is necessary in order to mitigate the great distress that the people of this country are going through. I hope the House will oppose this Bill until the Royal Commission has made its Report; that the House will not hand over villages in Lanarkshire, Dumbarton, and Renfrewshire to the tender mercies of the Glasgow City Council until they have studied the Report which, when drawn up, will be put into their hands.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: It seems rather strange that I should have the opportunity of following the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the second time, and should have the pleasure in this House of emphasising my appreciation of the very able and eloquent contribution which he has made to this debate. This Bill has been promoted by the City of Glasgow. The hon. Member who opposed it said that he could find in it no reason for passing. The reason for the Bill is the great need of space. Glasgow can say, to paraphrase the Prime Minister's peroration of the other day
Give space in our time, O Lord.
From its very needs and original constitution it has felt itself always expanding, and always being restricted. It has had, for many years, a very largely-increasing population, and a very largely-increasing industry, and an ever-thriving commercial prosperity. It was surrounded by a number of boroughs which had themselves sprung up and developed in a similar way. Glasgow was in the position of being ringed round with a series of smaller towns, and the time came when she had to expand her borders.
Before, however, she could reach the county areas and the open spaces which she needed most, she had, first of all, to absorb already congested areas and those
boroughs which had been thriving there for so many years. After that period she comes forward to the House with this Bill to permit her to take for the benefit of her inhabitants open spaces, not built up, not already congested, but giving her the opportunity of spreading herself out. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the rejection of this Bill quoted from a manifesto issued by the Glasgow Ratepayers' Federation. He said it was a manifesto which had been sent against the Bill. That is not so. It contains information which gives definite reasons why the annexation should take place. It says:
These areas get Glasgow water, gas, drainage and tramways. People live there whose business is in the city. Glasgow has built houses there, and intends to build more. City parks and hospitals are there. Police, health and sanitation should be the same as in the city. They should be within the city education authority, and the city should collect rates and make assessments there.
That does not seem very much like opposition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made what I suggest is a very gravely wrong use of certain figures. This manifesto contains figures showing that in 1912 the rates were 3s. 6d., and in 1923 were 6s., and he endeavoured to lead the House to believe that the rise from 3s. 6d. to 6s. was due to the annexation which had taken place in the year 1912. As a matter of fact, he missed out a most important line in that table, and if the opponents of the Bill are reduced to that method of argument they must have a very poor case. This Ratepayers' Federation, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alleged was antagonistic to the Bill, states that the rates in 1912 were 3s. 6d., and in 1914, after the amalgamation, they were 3s. 11d.; but it was the period from 1914 to 1922–23 that raised them from 3s. 11d. to 6s. That was a period when rates everywhere rose on account of the War, and to argue, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman ventured to do, that that rise in rates was due to an amalgamation two years before the War broke out seems to me altogether beyond the bounds of a reasonable interpretation of the document.

Sir A. SPROT: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? He interrupted me when I was on this point. I quoted from this paper, a copy of which
he has in his hand, and I will quote from it again. It says:
Previous annexations have been followed by higher rates and expenses of administration.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: That is not the quotation the hon. and gallant Gentleman made.

Sir A. SPROT: Then there follows the table. I did not give all the intervening years, but I took two years which bear out that contention, namely, that after annexation had taken place there was a very considerable rise in rates, and I think I was quite fair in what I did.

Mr. MITCHELL: I am sorry I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's distinction. He did not quote the passage which he alleges now he did quote. He quoted the year 1912, and then the year 1923, and omitted the intervening year, 1914, a year memorable to civic administrators as the year when the great advances began.
I cannot understand by what peculiar whim opposition to this Bill comes from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). He himself owes much to the fact that he lived and was bred in a wide and vast area. He knows Glasgow, though he left it, and he knows the needs of Glasgow, he knows the situation in Glasgow. He owes the splendour of his physical stature to the fact that he was brought up on Firth of Clyde. He owes his intellectual training and his learning to the fact that he attended on the slopes of Gilmore Hill. Raving made a not inconsiderable fortune by the practice of the learned profession in the City of Glasgow he went east, where the population is just a third in density compared with what it is in the west. Having wooed and won a constituency in Glasgow, he came to London: and having lost the constituency in Glasgow he now returns here as Member Cor a wild area in which he can put his foot down in any part of a hundred miles and declare:
My foot is on my electoral heath.
My name's Macquisten!
For the hon. and learned Gentleman to come to this House and "chivy" men who still live in Glasgow, and administer Glasgow-, about building over the last remaining few acres of their city, which
is already over-populated by a teeming population, is like coming to the City of London and saying, "You shall not build any more houses outwith your area until you have put Weir steel houses in Hyde Park." To suggest to the most congested city in the whole of Great Britain that the remaining lungs should be used for further building seems to me to be not in accord with the hon. and learned Gentleman's own administrative experience in the town council.
10.0 p.m.
What we want is space. We do not want more buildings in Glasgow. When I go to cities in England, I am filled with envy of the great wide areas occupied by workmen's houses; and when I see how English cities have spread over a vast expanse, when I see people travelling to and fro on their multitudinous bicycles, I feel "Why cannot the English members help us in Glasgow," we, with our city built upon many, many hills. The Psalmist said that it was the grace of Jerusalem that she was compactly built together; but the scientist does not agree with the Psalmist. Glasgow is too compactly built together, and we want to get out. Give us space, give us area, let us extend our boundaries. Do not force us to send our people out of our city to live in another area, under another administration, in houses built by and partially at the expense of their city. I know some of these areas are already built on. I know the counties do not want to lose those areas which give them a substantial rateable value. But those parts which Glasgow proposes to annex which are already built upon are really dormitories of the citizens of Glasgow, they are places where 95 per cent. of the inhabitants have all their interest in Glagsow, earn their money in Glasgow, have the use of all Glasgow's enterprises, come into Glasgow for their entertainment, come into Glasgow for their libraries, for art galleries, and for everything, but go out, very naturally and properly, in order that their children may be brought up in airy places.
Glasgow has a terrific problem to solve in its overcrowded areas. I was in one of them last Sunday week, a narrow street, where there are closes in which 36 families are living. Between the frontage of that and the frontage of the neighbouring street there is no air space,
save enough to cause a draught without giving proper ventilation. I went there, and I found little children singing "Ring a ring of roses," children who never see flowers at all until they sell them on the, street. Glasgow is at long last going to tackle this problem of its congestion. Is it not too much to ask that that great city, in tacking that problem, should have to sacrifice its own citizens to another hand?
There is one other. The extension of Glasgow as laid out in this Bill will link it up with a series of boroughs down the side of the Clyde. It will mean that Glasgow, Renfrew, Paisley, and Clydebank will all be linked up, and it will cut out the county area, shutting in a peninsula in an island of local government, and this will lead to the next stage in the evolution of a great city and a system of federation whereby great communal enterprises will be carried out with joint control and joint interest, and thereby promoting the interests of all the boroughs and indirectly the counties as well. I do not hesitate to ask those who represent widespread English cities to help Glasgow by sending this Bill for inquiry to a Committee where any injustice can be put right, and if there is any megalomania it can be restrained and where any greed can be adjusted. I ask those representing cities where there are broad acres and where the houses are scattered to come to the help of a great city which is asking for a 100 per cent. addition to its area, only 4 per cent. to its population, and only 5 per cent. to its valuation. We are only asking for space in order that. Glasgow may spread itself out for the physical development of the next generation of citizens.

Mr. TURTON: I tremble to think what hon. Members opposite will say in regard to a proposition on this Measure coming from the representative of the North Biding of Yorkshire. I am speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, of which I am the Vice-Chairman and spokesman in this House. I cannot agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Home) that there is no analogy between a Scottish Bill and an English Bill of the same character. I submit that the principles are identical, and what is good in regard to local government
extension in England is equally good for Scotland, and the reverse holds good in exactly the same way. I apologise for interfering in a domestic matter connected with Scotland, but I hope I shall not be treated like the man who interfered in a quarrel between a man and his wife when both the parties turned upon him and rent him in pieces.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead was not pleased with our objection because he said he wanted land for the purpose of housing. On the Royal Commission on London Government we had to deal with exactly the same problem. The London County Council, as is well known, have bought sites at Becontree and Dagenham, but the majority report found that that was no justification for the London County Council extending its boundaries a distance of something like four miles, which I understand is very nearly the same distance as in this case of Glasgow. I would like to be allowed to say a word or two with regard to the Royal Commission on Local Government of which I nave the honour to be a member. The House will understand that I can only refer to such matters as are published. I want to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead evidently had not read what our reference was, because he led hon. Members to infer that we were only considering the question of procedure, while as a matter of fact procedure is only one of the many matters which have come before us and upon which we have taken evidence.
The larger question we are now considering is the question of the creation and extension of county boroughs. The Royal Commission came into being incidentally with regard to questions raised by Leeds and Bradford. I had the honour of being invited, together with the late Sir Ryland Adkins, who was for many years a Member of this House, to meet the then Minister of Health, and we were accompanied by Sir Robert Fox, the then Town Clerk of Leeds, who was one of the most capable town clerks that ever served any municipality, but who, to our great regret, passed away a short time ago. We spent a great deal of time trying to arrive at a formula in regard to this matter, and when we were unable to do so this Commission was set up. I can assure the House that the idea
which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead gave to us is entirely erroneous. Our Report will be presented with very little delay, and I have every reason to believe that in a very few months that Report will be in the hands of the public and of Members of this House.
But surely the first necessity for an extension of the area of a municipality is to prove community of interests with that part which you propose to take in, and also that it is an overspill from the municipality itself. The part which' it is proposed should be taken in is, I understand, entirely agricultural, and it can in no way be said that there is community of interests. I was in Glasgow yesterday on a very profitable business, and so far as I could gather the objections which are raised are that the area proposed to be taken in will make the municipality too large for good local government. We have had a good deal of evidence upon this matter of huge municipalities. There does come a time when, if you have your municipalities too large, you will have all the affairs conducted by the officials, because it will be imposible for the members themselves to give that amount of time and take the interest in those various local matters which they can do if a municipality is not so large.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: That difficulty arises in the counties now.

Mr. TURTON: But the counties are in a different position, and there is no analogy between county and municipal government. I do not hesitate to say that county government is head and shoulders above the government of any municipality. I would like to say a word or two in reference to rating. Why are these people outside to be called upon to pay the heavy rates which will be imposed upon them when these areas are taken over by the municipality. I suppose the usual bribe will be put forward about differential rating. A more demoralising method it is impossible to conceive, and I hope that in the Report of the Royal Commission there will be something which may have the effect of dealing with this matter. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that at a time like this it will be lamentable as was pointed out by the hon. and
gallant Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) if enormous expenditure is incurred by taking a Bill like this upstairs. You will have counsel, who are paid enormous fees, quite out of proportion to the services they render, and you will have experts brought down, who, again, are given very large fees. I have no great opinion of experts. We remember the saying of Lord Bramwell, that there are liars, great liars, and expert witnesses; and, be added, the expert is the worst of the three.
In all seriousness I would ask the House to give attention to the question of respecting the local feeling in the areas that are to be taken in. Surely, those who live in a place have a right to object to being included in a municipality which they do not desire to join, and I say quite candidly that I believe that, if this Bill gets upstairs, it will be wrecked by the decision arrived at in the Committee presided over by Lord Kintore, who said:
The wishes of the people who are proposed to be included are to prevail.
Our county councils have a right to be allowed to continue to carry on that good work which they have done. They have made good since 1888, when the county councils were established, and no one has any right to come here and take away from the county councils that territory which they require for the carrying out of their work, when the people themselves ask that they shall remain under the county council. Therefore, I ask, in the name of the County Councils' Association, that this Bill be rejected upon its Second Reading, and that the great expense be not incurred of sending it upstairs.

Mr. COUPER: I should not have risen to address the House for the first time on this occasion had it not been that the subject under discussion is one of grave importance for the city of Glasgow, from one of the divisions of which I have had the honour to be returned to this House. While I represent the Maryhill Division, I look to all Members from the city of Glasgow, irrespectively of their division or their party, to support and advance the interest of the city on this occasion. It is customary, as I have observed from some maiden speeches, to crave the indulgence of the House on such an occasion, but I must say that I feel some confidence in coming before the
House, because I feel that there is such a friendly atmosphere here, especially to-night.
We have had almost a unanimous feeling exhibited that this Bill should have its Second Reading. I can well appreciate the feelings of the Mover of the Amendment, my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), because I know that the sympathies he has in his heart are with the city, while his allegiance and his duties to the county draw him in another direction. He is torn between the two. He has referred to the Royal Commission which is at present sitting, and it has been referred to by various other speakers. But we all know—it is hardly necessary to repeat—that this Commission has no reference whatever to Scotland, and Scottish Members who have spoken have made it quite clear that on no account will they recognise the legislation as being applicable, to Scotland. The last speaker evidently got to the point when he went direct to Glasgow to see for himself. It was once said by a visitor to Glasgow—I think it was after a Corporation banquet—that Glasgow was the intellectual centre of England. Apparently the hon. Member has acquired some of those ideas himself. It may be somewhat discouraging for us to remember that the gentleman who made that remark came from Russia. That was some years ago. Nowadays perhaps we have not the same high opinion of people of that nationality.
I should like to comment on one remark made by the hon. Member for Lanark, who accused Glasgow of being grasping and greedy. Glasgow is not either grasping or greedy. Glasgow only asks for elbow room—room to move and breathe and have her being. I and the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Health are the only two Members who reside in the divisions we represent—and for that reason I can speak with assurance and with personal knowledge of the condition of the industrial centre of Maryhill and its neighbourhood. It has been mentioned that there are areas where it is almost dark amid the blaze of noon. Why should any man arrogate to himself a claim to dispute the right of these human creatures to get the fresh air of which we are all entitled to have our share? Why should a man who requires to go and live outside the present borders
of Glasgow be deprived of his citizenship, a pride and privilege which everyone who has it is highly proud of? In the area of Glasgow there are 3,200 acres undeveloped. There are only 1,400 acres for ordinary house purposes. There are 300 acres reserved for hospitals, etc., 400 acres for industrial work, and we have also included football pitches which we have acquired, and we are satisfied that our people should have the opportunity and privilege of having their relaxations after their work. It has not been mentioned by opponents of the Bill that the City of Glasgow entered into negotiations with the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton in July, 1924, which were again repeated on the 19th January, 1925, when the City of Glasgow intimated that they were prepared for reasonable modifications. The meeting, however, was abortive, the counties not being able to entertain the Corporation's proposal. That showed that the Corporation were desirous in every way possible to arrange an amicable adjustment of any difficulty so long as the counties recognised the necessity of the city for expansion.
The delay that has been suggested of waiting until the Report of the Royal Commission, I claim, is dangerous and would be disastrous. The summer is almost upon us and we would consequently lose all opportunity for the erection of houses. We have heard in times gone past of these various ideas of asking us to wait and see. We have waited and we have seen. The next decade was, "Push and go." Well, that has been pushed, and it has gone. What we want to do is to do this thing and get on with our building, so that we can relieve the congestion that is so pressing us and is worse in Glasgow than anywhere else in the country. I ask the House to-night to give this question their not only serious but very grave consideration. The question of the lives of many people and of the youth and childhood of this generation is at stake if our borders are not to be increased. We ask for it. now and want it now. We do not want delay, and I ask that you should support the Second Reading of this Bill so that we may have it sent forward to Committee where it can be more fully discussed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise as a Glasgow Member, and wish to say at once that I always find myself in a minority. On
this occasion I again find myself even in a minority with my own colleagues in the city. I cannot say that I agree with the County ease, but even from the City of Glasgow point of view some criticism ought to be passed here. It is not fair to assume that because a man disagrees with his Glasgow colleagues he has lost his civic pride or civic patriotism. I am a native of the city, and know the problem of density equally if not better than most of the Members of this House. I have not had the learning of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell), but I sat in the Corporation for four years, with an advantage that only one other Member of this House can claim. I think I was the first on the Glasgow Town Council to try to perform the feat of working at the bench and being a member of the Glasgow Town Council. I want to suggest to Members of the Labour party that it is not merely a question of passing this Bill. You can pass this Bill and pay the price of democracy and abolish democratic control if you care to. But you should retain democratic control over the institutions that we create.
Parliament, in its payment of Members and travelling expenses, has recognised that the miner, the man from the cotton factory, the man from whatever sphere of life, has the right to take part in the deliberations here equally with the rich landlord. What has happened in the councils? I served for four years, and I was employed with an employer of the very best type who allowed me off time, which I had to pay for, and being a young, single man, different from now. then I could well afford it. My parents were prepared to help me, too, in the sacrifice. But what happened? The minimum I could do was 14 hours per week. That was during my first two years. After that it increased, and just before I came to this House I was on the verge of becoming a magistrate. If I had accepted that post, as I had a right to accept it, equally with the well-to-do members of the council, I could not have carried out the duties, because the time required was beyond the power of an ordinary workman to give. I want to suggest that it is not enough for a man who occupies the position of Lord Provost, and others, to speak of an extension of burghs, because in these large centres
it is becoming a mania for those at the head of the local government to increase their areas provided they can see themselves controlling ever-enlarging districts.
There is this other point in connection with democratic government which must be safeguarded. I served on the Glasgow Corporation, and I find that this happened. It may be argued against me by my colleagues that Glasgow to-day has 35? Labour members, and 39 Labour members equally as good as I, but our field of choice is limited to small business men, solicitors and trade union officials, while the ordinary worker at the bench who is entitled to be on public bodies is to-day debarred. That applies equally well to the county, just as it does to the City of Glasgow. Therefore I would put it to Glasgow Members: "What is to hinder you building your houses outside the City, without bringing these districts inside the City?" The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) should be better informed. You are not going to put City slum dwellers in the new areas. If you have houses in the new areas they would be built at rents which will prevent the dweller in the slums from occupying them for the next 10 years.
I occupy a house built by the City of Glasgow. Practically all the houses which the City of Glasgow has built, with one small exception, are built at rents which no workman can reasonably be expected to pay. I am in a house of the very cheapest class, a tenement house built by the corporation, and in this connection may I say that no one appreciates more than I the effects of the convenor of the Housing Committee, Bailie Morton, and one of his assistants, Bailie Welsh. The rent of that house is £26 a year or 10s. a week. When you add poor rate and local rates the rent at which it is let comes to £l per week. The shipyard workers' wages run from about £2 to £2 5s. per week. Therefore, hon. Members should not make speeches about transporting the slum dweller into the open country, when they know that it is not going to be done.
My own view is that the Corporation of the City of Glasgow will lose considerably on these districts. Take the latest acquisition to the City of Glasgow—Mosspark. I submit that the Glasgow Corporation loses money on Mosspark, apart from its
subsidy, because the Glasgow Corporation has to give police, sanitation, health and other services, and Mosspark or the new town which they have built inside the city is saving more on social services than it is paying in rates. May I put it to those Members who are talking about these people outside the city that they are going to create a preferential set of people living in the city. I want to prevent that. In the Bill, Millerston, Mount Vernon, and all the other places have for the next five years to be exempted from paying the same rates as the City of Glasgow. But hon. Gentlemen who have spoken know as well as I do that for the next five years the ratepayers of those places are going to demand all the social services without paying a single penny. And it is not for five years only, as the Glasgow Corporation for the sake of the Bill will make it ten years. For the next ten years, therefore, you will ask the poor people in my Division to pay high rates so as to give the people outside the city all the social services, though they are not paying for them.
When we are talking about preferential treatment let us be fair. My view is that it would be a dreadful responsibility, and more than I would care to undertake, for any hon. Member, whether he was county or town, to come to this House and do anything that even slightly retards the giving of decent houses to our people in Glasgow. The responsibility would be too great. I think that the Corporation ought to build the houses outside the city, and it ought not to hand them over to the county. I believe that townships ought to be set up and developed on modern lines. Garden cities should be built out, and towns ought to be given their own local rating and responsibility. Of course, that cannot be done in a week. I think that the Government, my party and the whole House should accept the responsibility and see that something is done immediately. I wish the opponents of this Bill would learn their own case against it. I have been surprised at their lack of knowledge. An inquiry was held last year—not 10 years ago, nor five years ago, but last year. What was it about? It was an inquiry into the question whether it was possible to make Glasgow into one great parish council area. Let me explain to
Members who do not know that in Glasgow there are four or five different, parish councils, or what are in England termed boards of guardians. The Corporation of Glasgow decided to petition to have them all brought into one administrative area. An inquiry Commission was set up, the Commission consisting of people not interested at all. One of them was the Liberal Member for Inverness Burghs and another was the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. I forget who was the chairman, but he was neutral. They went into the question of parish councils, and without calling upon those who were to put the case against them, without hearing the Glasgow Corporation, they dismissed the Corporation's case, largely on the ground that the bringing of all the parish areas into one administrative area was unworkable and not likely to lead to democratic control.
That was a neutral Commission which sat only last year, and it related only to parish government. When you add municipal government to parish government you have the case demonstrated more strongly than evey. I think that the counties are terribly selfish in the matter. They fear that they are going to be asked to pay a penny or two more in rates. Because of the opposition of my own colleagues I do not intend to go into the Lobby against the Bill, but I want to say honestly and candidly that the passing of this Bill will not solve the problem of density in Glasgow. I wish it could. One has to think of the fact that the Glasgow Corporation bought ground in my district some time ago, and there is, as yet, not a stone upon it and not a single man at work, and yet they are building outside the city, the reason apparently being to intimidate people into agreeing with this Bill. They are not acting, I think, in a correct or proper way, but, on the other hand, Glasgow's problems are great. My division is, I think, the worst in the whole country as regards overcrowding. I believe the only place that equals my division is the district of Cowcaddens which is part of St. Rollox and certainly next to that, is the Gorbals part of my division. The density is fearful. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell) spoke of 36 families in one close. In South Wellington Street, a street which is well
known to the Pensions Ministry, where nearly every one fought for King and country and sacrificed life or limb, there are in one close nearly 70 families, living in a place where artificial light is necessary morning, noon and night. That is a fearful thing to say about my city. It is not a tribute to those who are asking for this extension. It indicates mismanagement in the past and I would be wrong if I allowed this Measure to pass without some criticism. On the other hand, if there is even the millioneth part of a chance of doing anything to abolish South Wellington Street and to take my good people—the best people in the world—out of those horrible surroundings to decent surroundings then I would be taking upon myself a responsibility greater than I could carry, if I hindered that chance in any way.

Sir H. CRAIK: I am sure the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will not accuse me of any superficial or hypocritical meaning if I tell him that I thoroughly admired the speech he has just delivered. He has often roused us by his independence of thought and, not less, by his depth of feeling, but I do not think he ever showed those qualities more conspicuously than to-night. I hope he will not think less of me because I hold opinions so different from his and stand in such a different attitude from him, if I tell him that with a great deal of what he said I am absolutely in agreement. I am not going to repeat many of the arguments which have been used against this Bill with regard to rates and burdens, because I would rather base my position on broader grounds. I know I am speaking rather bodily in taking up an attitude of opposition to such doughty defenders as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home) and the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). The former spoke in somewhat excessive and exaggerated language, and I notice he has not thought it worth his while to remain in his place and hear his arguments answered. I committed to memory some of the words which the right hon. Gentleman used, such as "unbelievable," "monstrous." "incredible," "intolerable," and these words he used in regard to those who might not take precisely his view on this question. May I say that the hon.
Member for Shettleston defended the Bill with much more strength than my right hon. Friend when he appealed to oar human feelings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) spoke with something of irony upon the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), who moved the rejection of the Bill, might have made large fees by opposing the Bill in Committee. That jibe might have been left out, and it would have been in better taste, if he will allow me to say so, to have left it out. I cannot boast of any such powers, but I am sometimes inclined to think that, powerful as his legal advocacy is, his use of exaggerated language and his denunciation of the moral characters of those who take different views from his, are a weakness rather than a strength. The first strong argument of the right hon. Gentleman, an argument which he seemed to think was unanswerable, was that the Glasgow Town Council has unanimously decided in favour of this Bill. Have we to look for an answer to that to anything but the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who has told us how there might be unanimity—

At this juncture the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) entered the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Smite him again!

Sir H. CRAIK: The best answer to my right hon. Friend's argument will be found, I was saying, in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals, to which he did not, apparently, think it worth while to listen. Another argument that he used was this: He said, "How can you keep us within this wretched, close area, where we have a million population, when we want to expand over 22,000 acres? "Does he really think that that is a common-sense argument? Can they not build as much as they like over those 22,000 acres? Does he think there is an impassable line drawn round the municipality? To listen to him or to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) one would have thought that this was a forbidden area, and that the inhabitants of Glasgow could scarcely walk, much less think of building houses, outside the boundaries of the city. The hon. Member for Gorbals, far better than I can, showed the utter futility of that argu-
merit. Then my right hon. Friend said: "Why not allow this to go to a Committee?" Well, we know what a Committee means in the way of expense, and we know that, if you have these constant Committees and inquiries, you interfere with the regularity and soundness of county administration. These authorities are never at rest, and they never know what is coming next.
Is it the case that this matter is one only of facts, as my right hon. Friend urged? There is far more than facts, there is a matter of principle, and I contend that it is not by constant private Bills, proposing to make changes so momentous as this, that the whole face of the country should be changed. It is only a little over 30 years since local county government was established in Scotland. It has done good work. County council government in Scotland has had a trial for 30 years. It has done its work well. This House carefully framed the County Council Act. That ought not to be undermined and changed by applications in Private Bills. I am a native of Glasgow. I have known it for many years more than any man sitting in this House. I love every stone of it. I am not sure that it will gain by extension. I am quite sure that if you extend your government too far, however good it is, you will increase the bureaucratic element. As my hon. Friend said, I am sure a great deal falls into the hands of officials who are the masters in the long run. I am afraid that will be the result. Not only have I known Glasgow, but for 20 years I had charge of a large part of national administration in Scotland, and I know how much is to be gained by the encouragement of those small municipalities and county areas in a sense of their self-conscious unity. If you get so big a centre that people forget their local patriotism and forget to follow each detail of their administration, you lose the power of local government. I knew in the Education Department how enormously helpful it was to have small local areas with a self-conscious unity.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to delay the House on this matter, and I only intervene because of the intervention of my colleague, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I understand that it is quite good form in this House
to pay compliments and tributes to your political opponents, and on this occasion it will be quite in order for me to say that the hon. Member for Gorbals, as one of my political opponents on this occasion, has made the most excellent speech which has been made to-night, in a very, very bad cause. I differ from him with the most profound regret. In agreeing to support this Bill, I have present in my mind all the prejudices in addition to the reasons that he has for coming to the decision to oppose it. I am not at all disposed in any friendly spirit to the great Tory majority which administers the affairs of Glasgow at the present moment. I do not like their methods of running their city. I do not like their attitude towards their political opponents. I object to the way in which they have approached Members of this House in reference to this Bill. I have the same objection as he has to the too wide extension of a community for civic administration, and I want to see, ultimately, some scheme produced which will limit the excessive growth of our big cities.
But all the practical considerations compel me to support this Bill to-night, overcoming my political prejudices, my natural antagonisms, and my general theories of what ought to be done in the long run, because I am perfectly satisfied that this is the thing that ought to be done in the short run. All speakers have referred to the housing question, and it is a fact that the counties of Renfrew and Lanark, which are mainly going to have their territory taken over by this proposed extension, have got their housing problems for their own towns. They have plenty of space for it. South Lanarkshire is a great, wide, practically unpopulated area Lanarkshire has any amount of scope for extension in that direction, but neither Lanarkshire nor Renfrewshire is going to house the people of Glasgow. The people who have the responsibility for that are the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, and the Corporation have already bought sites in this area over which they are now asking permission to take administrative control. They are providing themselves with the means, which they have not got inside the City boundaries, of rehousing their population. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals says what is absolutely true, that
the slum dwellers of his constituency and my constituency will not get the new houses in the extended area, but they will get the houses that are left by the people who go out to the districts; and that is all that the working classes can hope to get at the present time—the handed-down houses of the people who go outside.
I want the space, and I want it at once, and this seems to be the only way I know at this particular date, without waiting for Commissions, or anything else, in the far distant future. This is the practical step that I can take to-night to do something to save some of the infants' deaths, which, in one of the municipal wards I represent in this House, extend to-day to

the number of 136 out of every 1,000 children. Hundreds more, unfortunately, survive as mental and physical defectives. Inside the city of Glasgow, to day, we have got 66 per cent. of all the mentally defective children and all the physically defective children in the whole of Scotland. I want the space, I want it to-night, and not when a Commission has reported, and I am asking my colleagues on these benches to give us in Glasgow the space that is necessary for the health and welfare of our community.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divides: Ayes, 229; Noes, 111.

Bill read & Second time, and committed.

Paisley Burgh Extension Bill (By Order),

Rutherglen Burgh Bill (By Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND [PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to teinds and to the stipends of ministers of the Church of Scotland, and the tenure of the property and endowments of that Church, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the Treasury to contract for the redemption by payment of a capital sum or sums of all or any of the payments to or on behalf of that Church, or the General Assembly, or any committee or institution of the Church, or any minister or precentor, which are now charged on and payabe out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom;
(2) to authorise the Treasury to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners
2428
any capital sum or sums which may be necessary for carrying into effect any contract for such redemption;
(3) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of repaying any such loan, to create in favour of the said Commissioners a terminable annuity for a period not exceeding twenty years from the date of the loan, to be calculated with interest at such rate as may be agreed, and to charge any such annuity upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof."

Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in line 9, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that such capital sum or sums shall not exceed the amount, together with interest thereon, necessary for discharging in full all existing life interests.
At this hour I will consult the convenience of hon. Members by not dwelling at great length on this very important subject, I think, however, that there are one or two points on which we might desire fuller information from the Minister. The Lord Advocate, when this matter was before us on a former occasion in Committee, brought the history of the teinds down to date, and showed how these Exchequer grants were, as he contended, in lieu of bishops' teinds. That set me looking up more fully and accurately the history of these bishops' teinds, and I found that they were expressly confined to bishops who had made their submission to King Charles I., and had accepted the divine right of kings. Therefore, I think the Church of Scotland, which was opposed to episcopacy and opposed to the divine right of kings in that sense, can hardly make a claim, and indeed it was because they were tied to episcopacy that these teinds were abolished or reverted to the Crown in 1690.
In the next place, we wish to call attention to the indefiniteness of this proposal to give such sum or sums out of the Treasury as will redeem the sums at present given. We know that Lord Haldane in his Report suggested that the capital sum should be such that it would provide in all time coming grants equal to those at present given, and I think we are entitled to some guidance from the Minister as to whether his proposal amounts to this, or whether he has departed from it. We maintain that the safe principle is to give in full and in a generous way to meet all life interests, and to let these grants, which we maintain are unjust and are
obnoxious to the people of Scotland as a whole, be brought to an end, instead of providing a capital sum that will give them a perpetual continuance.
There is another point on which I should like a little information. A question was put to the Secretary for Scotland by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) to the effect that it was common knowledge that the Church of Scotland, and even the United Free Church, which I represent, in some of its parishes in the Highlands, had a very small membership and a very small number of adherents, and asking as to the Church known as the Free Church of Scotland, which can claim a large adherence in some of these places. In one of their memoranda they give the case of a parish where there are 10 people connected with the Church of Scotland, and, for aught that I know, no more connected with my own Church, while they have 1,155 adherents. In a similar case, 13 in the Church of Scotland as against 490 in their Church. I agree with all that fell from the hon. Member for Ross as to the way in which that Church has held certain districts of our country, but what I am concerned about is the subject of Parliamentary control. The Secretary for Scotland said the Church of Scotland, having this money, might through the sister Church meet the case and carry on its national work; and it occurs to me that this money is being given to a Church which has a specific constitution, which had its constitution enlarged in 1921 and very clearly defined, and is such a Church at liberty to make a compromise and to give monies out of what we are voting to-night to another Church to do the work? It seems to me that this House might thereby be countenancing a heresy for anything it knows, and as a matter of fact this Church in its claim already maintains that the constitution of the Church of Scotland is a vitiated constitution, that it sacrifices the profession of the reformed faith, that it is a betrayal of the fabric of reformation which we have inherited from our reformers, covenanters, and confessors, and they use still stronger language. What I should wish to know is that we know what we are doing, and if we are acting in keeping with the principle of Parliamentary control, and that we do not allow
one Church to receive money and then hand it over to another Church to do the work. To sum up, in Scotland there is nothing more obnoxious than this form of State endowment—coming direct to the Exchequer and taking grants for the purpose of assisting a single denomination. I think the union itself is hindered rather than helped, and I can say for my own church that I have never known any minister or office bearer justify these Exchequer grants. It is a very clear issue indeed. There is no other church in the United Kingdom that receives such grants. The Church of England does not receive grants direct from the Exchequer. We hold them to be wrong in themselves and we hold that you do not improve them by giving a lump sum, which is really perpetuating them; because then you can never recall it We maintain that you should meet life interests, and bring the whole system, to an end. We hold it to be opposed to every principle of religions equality: and the people of Scotland, although they desire union on a satisfactory basis, are strongly opposed to taking public money directly from the Exchequer and applying it to the purposes of a particular denomination. We think that, by a generous meeting of life interests in the way we propose, we should bring this system to an end, and further, instead of retard, the great principle of union itself.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope we shall be able to extract from the Lord Advocate a clear statement as to how much money is actually involved in this. I do not know, and I do not know anyone who knows, what this is likely to cost the State. The Treasury is to come to terms with the Church of Scotland. What terms the public are to get no one knows, and I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is getting a reputation, perhaps undeservedly, for being an economist, would, in the face of his Budget, allow this sort of thing to go on under his very nose. He perhaps has not paid the attention to this matter which he would have paid if he had been a representative of a Scottish constituency still, or if he had not been of the opinion that it was perfectly safe to delegate the financial arrangements under this Bill to
the Secretary for Scotland. We are entitled to know exactly what the financial commitments, what exact sums of money are involved in this Bill. Past experience of the financial management of the Church of Scotland does not lead some of us to believe that we will get off very easily. We ought really to have a clear statement of what this means, and I for one shall be indebted to the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland if either of them is in a position to tell us.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): One of the points raised to-night was both raised and answered on the last occasion. In regard to the amount of money involved, to which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) referred, I would ask him to add together the sums which he will find in the Seventh Schedule, and he will find the amount, except for the last item which I may inform him was about £90 last year

Mr. BARR: That was, of course, the annual sum. We were anxious to know the capital sum.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will be a little patient and will give me time to conclude! I wish to remind the House, as I said on the last occasion, that even if this Amendment were accepted it would not interfere with the annual payments being made. On the other hand, it would make it practically certain that they would continue to be made and that no redemption could take place.
The only effect of this Financial Resolution is an enabling one. It will enable negotiations to take place between the Treasury and the Church with a view to their agreeing upon a capital sum for redemption of these annual payments. The continuation of these annual payments depends upon a part of the Bill which is not within the terms of the Financial Resolution at all. It will fall to be dealt with in Committee. All that we are dealing with is a power to negotiate to redeem these annual payments. If the power of negotiation which the Treasury are given is to be limited to the value of the life interest, which otherwise in the Bill is payable in perpetuity, then surely it is clear that the Treasury will have
their power so hampered and restricted that it will not be worth while negotiating with the Church at all.
Nobody can tell exactly what the bargain at which the two will arrive. For one thing, it will have to be an agreement. The interest of the Treasury will be in keeping the number of years' purchase as low as possible, and the interest of the Church will be to keep them as high as possible. As was said by the Secretary for Scotland on the last occasion the Church will be lucky indeed if they get anywhere near 20 years' purchase of the annual payments. No one can say exactly what it will be. Probably it will be considerably less than that. But the question before the House now is whether you are going to give them power to negotiate for the redemption, by a capital sum, of payments which otherwise probably will be in perpetuity. So far as I may be in order I will deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr). I have a distinct recollection that I went as far as I was allowed by the Chairman in explaining the matter of the Bishops teinds and the mortgage to the Crown in 1690. The direction in which the hon. Member invites me to go seems to tend towards an argument as to whether they were at that time the property of the Church.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Motherwell is estopped from that argument by moving this Amendment. We are now confined strictly to what is contained in the words of the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Then the hon. Member for Motherwell referred to a part of the Haldane Report dealing with this matter, and seemed to speak with commendation of the suggestion in the Report that the Church ought, any way, to get a capital sum which would provide the full annual sum which they were getting. Whether that was the wish of the hon. Member or not, one thing certain is that they will not get that under this enabling power. Then the third and last question referred to by the hon. Member was the position of the Church in Scotland, the "Wee Frees," as they call them. The matter was not directly associated in the speech of my right hon. Friend with this particular fund, nor do they express anything further than an anticipation that the Church of Scotland, seeing that it is
a national Church of Scotland and has a duty to the nation as a whole, if it finds that in a particular part of Scotland a portion of the community were not or could not be conveniently or adequately served by its administrations, and there is a sister Church with the same ideals and the same beliefs ready to take on the work it might assist it in that direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is greeted with acceptation, I think, on all hands, which seems to confirm the hope which my right hon. Friend had expressed with regard to that. On that point one cannot do anything more than express the hope. Having dealt fully with the points raised by hon. Members, I would now ask the House to give us this Report.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Lord Advocate has given us certain figures. He seems to be a little bit annoyed at the way in which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) always appears to forget that, unless this enabling power is given them, this money will go on being paid in perpetuity. I would suggest to him that, if we are going to give a capital sum to the Church, that capital sum should be so arranged that an attempt will be made to get equality between this annual sum, the value that that annual sum would have, and the capital sum that will be arranged. The right hon. Gentleman need not think that by introducing this reference to the payment being made in perpetuity, a far more tremendous sum is involved. I take it that what the Treasury and the Church will try to arrange is the exact sum. The point I would like some information on is this: The Church of Scotland at present as the national Church established has a certain responsibility towards all the people of Scotland, and the State has a certain responsibility with regard to that Church. If the Church does not fulfil its responsibility to the Scottish people it falls within the power of the State, the Government of the day, and the House of Commons, to take disciplinary steps with regard to the Church; but if we give this power to the Treasury and if this annual payment is capitalised and the capital sum is paid, and if this union takes place, how are we in future going to see that the Scottish Church, which has got this money, fulfils its duty, or what
hold is the House of Commons or the State going to have over the Church to see that it is fulfilling its responsibility? If we can be given a little information as to the future relationships in this respect, whether I agree with the Lord Advocate or not, I will not do anything further to prolong the discussion. I would, however, like to know something with regard to this power that the State has at present in relation to the Established Church of Scotland.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The trust or the purpose for which all these moneys are paid is defined either by Statute or in the Warrant under which they are acting, and any diversion of the moneys from that purpose would be a breach of the trust.

Mr. STEPHEN: So that we in a future House of Commons would have the opportunity of pointing, say, to some dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Church in carrying out its spiritual duties and dealing with the funds? This is a very important point. Some ordinary Members, some Members from South of the Tweed, may not know the importance of it in Scotland—the relationship of the State and the Church in future—and I would like the Lord Advocate to make it as clear as possible.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no doubt that hon. Members representing constituencies South of the Tweed equally know what a breach of trust is. A breach in the case of the Warrant would be followed by the ordinary consequences in the Courts of the country where it takes place. If the trust purposes are defined by Royal Warrant a breach might result in the withdrawal of the Royal Warrant; in the case of the Statute possibly the matter would go to the Courts of Law.

Mr. BARR: Is it not the whole purpose of this movement that this money capitalised will so become the property of the Church that, the State will never again be able to interfere with it or exercise discipline in regard to it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that question is outside the scope of this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 194.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Forrest, W.
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kennedy, T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J- (Linlithgow)


Amnion, Charles George
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Ganzoni, Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Lee, F.


Balniel, Lord
Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.


Barnes, A.
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Loder, J. de V.


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Lougher, L.


Batey, Joseph
Gower, Sir Robert
Lowth, T.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Grace, John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Abaravon)


Bennett, A. J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bethell, A.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
MacIntyre, Ian


Bird, E. B. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grotrian, H. Brent,
MacLaren, Andrew


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grundy, T. W.
McLean, Major A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Broad, F. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
March, S.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Brooke, Brigadier General C. R. I.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hardle, George D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bixton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harland, A.
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Murnin, H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.Colonel Sir Joseph


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton. H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. U. L. (Exeter)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Clayton, G. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis


Clowes, S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oakley, T.


Cluse, W. S.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Compton, Joseph
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Connolly, M.
Hilton, Cecil
Palin, John Henry


Couper, J. B.
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crook, C. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Plelou, D. P.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitch'n)
Pilcher, G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Day, Colonel Harry
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Potts, John S.


Drewe, C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford, E. A.


Duncan, C
Jacob, A. E.
Raine. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


England, Colonel A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Finburgh, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Ford, P. J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Riley, Ben
Smith-Carlngton, Neville W.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Ritson, J.
Smithers, Waldron
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Roberts, E. H. Q. (Flint)
Snell, Harry
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ropner, Major L.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemourh)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Scurr, John
Taylor, R. A.
Windsor, Walter


Sexton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Womersley, W. J.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shepperson, E. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wright, W.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)


Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Warrender, Sir Victor



Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sinclair,Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Sir W. Alexander and Mr. Neil


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wells, S. R.
Maclean.


Smillie, Robert
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gretton, Colonel John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Groves, T.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Remer, J. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Beamish, Captain T. p. H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major 1.


Blundell, F. N.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)
Huntingfield, Lord
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Cautley, sir Henry S.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl'S)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & KInc'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Dixey, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Varley, Frank B.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Warne. G. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel
Watts, Dr. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W.R., Ripon)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Franele E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wragg, Herbert


Glyn. Major R. G. C.
Murchison, C. K.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grant, J. A.
Neville, R. J.



Greenall, T.
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perring, William George
Mr. Macquisten and Lieut.-Colonol




McInnes Shaw.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put, and agreed to.

Division No. 50.]
AYES.
[11.41 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, Wast)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton. Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Livingstone, A. M.
Warne, G. H.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.



Hardle. George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Johnston.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)






NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, F. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Balniel, Lord
Hammersley, S. S.
Nail, Lieut. Colonel Sir Joseph


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bennett, A. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.


Bethell, A.
Hawke, John Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pennefather, Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Grittain. Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Pielou, D. P.


Broun-Lindsay. Major H.
Herbert, S (York, N. M.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Pilcher, G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Preston. William


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Radford, E. A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Raine, W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remer, J. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume. Sir G. H.
Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cope, Major William
Illiffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Couper, J. B.
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders. Sir Robert A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Dixey, A. C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Drewe, C.
Loder, J. de V.
Slesser. Sir Henry H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Longher, L,
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & KInc'dine, C.)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fielden, E. B.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Finburgh, S.
MacIntyre, Ian
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fleming, D. P.
McLean, Major A.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Ford, P. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ganzoni, Sir John






Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W.R., Ripon)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wragg, Herbert


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watts, Dr. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredrlc
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wheter Major Granville C. H.
Womersley, W. J.
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


White. Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hacking

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a Sup-
plementary sum, not exceeding £268,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses Manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.'

Question again proposed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Debate was interrupted by the important Bill which we have been considering, I was inquiring from the Government what they proposed to do about a very grave matter affecting the fisheries arriving out of the growth of weed on the Dogger Bank.

Mr. WOOD: I wish to raise a point of Order. I am most reluctant to interrupt the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, but I would like to know if it is within the competence of the hon. and gallant Member to discuss the broad policy of our fisheries upon a Vote which simply deals with a construction of a breakwater in Devonshire?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I not in Order in arguing that the £3,000 required for this breakwater would be more usefully expended in general research connected with out-fishories?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid not. The hon. Member can only talk about Hope Cove.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not detain the House discussing Hope Cove, although I might very well ask for a justification and an explanation of this expenditure.